Skip to main content

Full text of "Sketch of paleobotany"

See other formats






ete ; : , : : 


be 1885. 


Cornell University 

The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 




A 964. 

wel UNIVER, 
cor The 

President White 
. 2 Library 
“ervey © 


I.—On the term ‘‘Paleobotany” ... 2... 220 cence eee eee e eee ten ees 363 
I1.—Interrelations of geology and biology ......... --.-.--e eee eee eee eee ees 363 
III.—Scope of the present paper -..............--0. eee ine weiee Bewese 364 
IV.—Need of o condensed exhibit. .-. 2.2... 0.2. cece ee cence eee cee eee cote 364 
V.—Future prospects of paleobotany .......... 022. .-00ee cee e ee cence cee eee 365 
VI.—Interdependence'of botany and paleobotany ........--.-.----. 2... +--- 366 
VII.—Historical review of paleobotanical discovery ...-.....---------++-++-+ 368 
A.—Biographical sketches......-.... 022-22 see-ee cece eee cee eee eee 368 
T. Scheu hzerewwcceus cee wh shoesewudd sae emese eee seawes 370 
2. Schlotheimiecsiaycouses cs cond cee ccd ceeececeeees eeaet 370 

Sy Stern bere cece ies des wee ces we atMaweead etka dense 371 
4, (BION OMaltie-socossacc cece Geese seicceeececciaa See ceeeiee e's 372 
Os Witla. jccccss exes scacekkiee toddgeee tneee ne eeeed 372 
6: (GOpperb accede cctewdes ceeeeee seks coetamee Sedenm ee 373 
Me CORAM es scben oto emer eons Soke weedy cer abetes Bee ceet 374 

8) Geinlty scecvemmdaceeweesexenesso weeet weeeme Rees Bee see xe 374 

9. Binney csvemeesaecveher se cece: secnidceeewewessetadee 374 
10) Un @eriecs: 2 ossce egened cele ven ssneuiaeeeneeee eee cece 375 
I -Schim per ys ciece wes xian isl 'd oy weeeineeeemeeeets - eESe eee 375 

12. Williamson sccccvccns cesses cose wedaaseeeseees cere cece 376 

13; AbesquerenX\s#<2. 2 scslonccs gotnctstenreetencesesedsas | Sd6 
143 Dawsoiegscgesex cers st cimiee seiesecwiasesesci weeses eee Oe 

15, Heer ceases cies bs soy, be Sach aeacee sseieece weet ee eeciisle 378 

16; Bunburyics eceste 2262 sealeeeorseeceeses seas st eee cess: OTD 

17. Massalongo....--.- 3p biereiat wate eine serdar histets ie eat g'oeiee’s 379 

18. Ettingshausen sss ses ssn cesectesieasiess! Se eeiep- ee estes 380 

19: Newberty 2: = ses2¢-.2icarscenediahiess pita weenie “OBI 

20, Schenk: < cjais ssen. eeeoveculwuiincs wed fsa keene 382 

Q1.. Saporta ces cee ou snk vane ves seriece teenie see 383 

22. Carruthers) o.sucsceic cece x sateecreren cree Gece teint 384 
B.—Sketch of the early history and subsequent progress of paleo- 

hObaN Yer. d cies sie cen Ses twa meee Sees Gemte hedd wee ce eae euied 385 

1. The pre-scientific period ...--..----. --- eee eee eee eee 385 

2. The scientific period .......----. 2-2-2. 2-2 eee ee eee 399 

VIII.—Nomenclature and classification of fossil plants....-.....---..-----+.-- 425 

1X.—The natural method as indicated by paleobotany.........-.--..----.-- 431 

1. Types of vegetation. ...... 0... 2-2-2 cece ee coe eee eee eee eee 432 

2) “The LinnwaniSy stem coset eteeietieinetce ties hese oe cieceemis 433 

3. Systems of the Jussieus .....-. ..---- cece cee e eee ee eee eee eee 434 

4, System of modern botanists .... .-..-..----..----- 2+ --- 2 eee eee 435 

5. Modified system proposed ....-..---.--------------+-- eee wesea 436 

6. Classification of the cryptogams ....-.. 2.222. 222. eee eee eee eee 437 

7. Geognostico-botanical view of the plant life of the globe ...-..- 439 



PLaTE LVI.—Diagram No. 1; showing the relative predominence of each prin- 
cipal type of vegetation at each geological period (colored)... 443 
LVIIL.—Diagram No. 2, showing the observed origin and development 

of the principal types of vegetation in geologic time .......- 450 
LVIII.—Diagram No. 3, showing the assumed origin and develonment 
of the principal types of vegetation in geologic time ..-...-. 452 




The term paleobotany has the advantage of brevity over the more 
common expressions vegetable paleontology and phytopaleontology, while 
at the same time its etymologic derivation from two purely Greek words 
renders it equally legitimate. Still, neither of the other terms should 
be entirely discarded. While it is always necessary to use the specific 
term for the science of fossil plants, the practice of employing the ge- 
neric term paleontology when treating of animal remains only seems ob- 
jectionable. The corresponding term paleozodlogy should be recognized, 
and used whenever the more restricted expressions vertebrate paleon- 
tology and invertebrate paleontology are inapplicable. It is thus only 
that the terminology of the science becomes consistent and itself sci- 


The science of paleontology has two objects, the one geologic, the 
other biologic. The history of the earth is toa large extent the history 
of its life, and the record which organic life leaves constitutes the prin- 
cipal index to the age of its successive strata. In paleozodlogy this 
record is implicitly relied upon and forms the solid foundation of geo- 
logical science. In paleobotany so much cannot be said, yet it too has 
already rendered valuable service to geology, and is often the only guide 
furnished by nature to the solution of important problems. 

The contribution that paleontology thus makes to the history of the 
earth—to geology—is not more interesting than that which it makes to 
the history of the earth’s life—to biology. No questions are more en- 
grossing, nor in fact more practically important for man as one of the 
living forms developed on the earth, than those that pertain to the origin 
and development of the various forms of life, and a knowledge of the 
past life of the globe is that by which we are enabled to understand its 

1 Being a preliminary draft of a portion of the introduction to a ‘Compendium of 

Paleobotany,” in preparation. 
yy prep 369 


present life as a product of development. Paleozodlogy has already 
thrown a flood of light upon the true nature of animal life as it now ex- 
ists, and now paleobotany is rapidly coming to the aid of those who have 
hitherto so long groped in darkness relative to the origin, development, 
and distribution of the plant life of the globe. 


With the second of these objects the present work is only incident- 
ally concerned, its chief aim being to secure, so far as its influence ex- 
tends, the better realization of the first. Still, it cannot be denied that 
a considerable degree of mutual dependence subsists between the bio- 
logic and the geologic standpoints. To understand the true force of the 
facts of paleobotany as arguments for geology it is essential that their 
full biologic significance be grasped. It has therefore been deemed 
proper, in this introduction to the several tabular and systematic state- 
ments which will make up the bulk of the volume and bear chiefly upon 
the geological aspect of the subject, to consider certain of the more im- 
portant biologic questions, in addition to the specially geologic ones, 
and to discuss, from an historical and developmental standpoint, some 
of the leading problems of modern phytology. 


First of all it must be insisted upon that, notwithstanding the large 
amount of work that has been done in paleobotany and the somewhat 
formidable literature which it possesses, the present state of the science 
is far from satisfactory when regarded as a guide to the attainment of 
either of the ends above mentioned. Its value, as compared with that 
of paleozodlogy, in the determination of ‘the age of formations in which 
vegetable remains are discovered is very small, yet it may well be asked 
whether the habit of discounting the testimony of fossil plants, acquired 
at a time when much less was known than now, may not have been con- 
tinued to an extent which is no longer warranted by the present state 
of our knowledge. Whether this be so or not, it is at least certain that 
the real present insufficiency of this department of paleontology as an 
exact and reliable index to geologic succession is largely due to the ex- 
ceedingly fragmentary and desultory character of the science, consid- 
ered as a body of truth, and that a proper and careful collation and sys- 
temization of the facts already in the possession of science will add in 
a high degree to their value in this respect. It was this consideration, 
so obvious to me from the beginning of my investigations in paleobot- 
any, that moved me to undertake the compilation of this work, and it 


has been the growing importance of this same consideration, becoming 
more apparent at every step, that has impelled and encouraged me 
throughout its laborious preparation. 

It is especially in America that this want of methodical arrange- 
ment in paleobotany has been most keenly felt. The most important 
works on fossil plants have been published since the last attempt of 
this kind was made in Europe, and very little of our knowledge of the 
science has ever been embodied in any of the works of this class. The 
literature of this country is scattered throughout the scientific serials 
and official publications of the various geological surveys, and the few 
more comprehensive works that have appeared not only leave this branch 
of the subject in great doubt and confusion, but contain, besides, many 
fundamental misconceptions and positive errors. 

Whatever degree of inadequacy paleobotany may reveal for the solu- 
tion of geologic questions, no one can deny that its value can never 
be fairly judged until its materials are first so classified and arranged 
that all the light that can be shed by them on any given problem can be 
directed full upon it and the problem deliberately studied byit. When 
this can be accomplished, even should it do no more than emphasize 
the insufficiency of the data, it would, even then, have the effect of 
pointing out the proper direction of future research with a view to in- 
creasing the material and perfecting the data. This work has been 
conceived and is being conducted primarily to this end of thus focaliz- 
ing, as it were, the knowledge already extant in this department of re- 
search, and of bringing it to bear with its full force, however feeble 
this may be, upon the questions to whose solution it is capable of being 
legitimately applied. 


While it is particularly as a contribution to American science, and 
with special reference to its application to American geology that the 
work has been undertaken, still, for many and obvious reasons it was 
found impossible to confine it to purely American facts. The useful- 
ness, for the purpose intended, of any such compilation increases in an 
accelerated ratio as its scope is expanded, and its value only begins to 
be really great when it approaches complete universality and compasses 
the whole field of facts so far as known within its particular department. 
While this would be true of any science, it is conspicuously so of paleo- 
botany, where, more than anywhere else, the record is so notably incom- 
plete, A more spécial reason in this case lies in the fact, only recently 
so strongly felt by paleobotanists, that the floras of the successive epochs 
in the history of the earth have been differentiating and becoming more 
and more varied according to their degree of territorial separation, so 
that in studying them in reverse order we find greater and greater uni- 


formity over the whole globe as we go back in time. The fact that 
even the Tertiary floras of the most remote regions of the world possess 
a striking resemblance among one another, wholly unknown among ex- 
isting floras, has only just now fairly revealed itself to science, and found 
its striking confirmation in the very recent work? of Baron von Et- 
tingshausen on the Tertiary Flora of Australia. This uniform char- 
acter of the fossil floras of different epochs, combined with their varia- 
tion from one epoch to another, lends hope to paleobotany and leads to 
the belief that when we shall have learned with precision the true char- 
acteristics of each flora—learned to distinguish the accidental from the 
essential, and geographic from chronologic characteristics—we shall be 
in a condition to apply the data at hand to the explanation and eluci- 
dation of the geologic and biologic history of the earth. 

While it is upon the defectiveness of the geologic record, so far as 
plants help to make it, that the chief stress is usually laid, still, could 
this record be so edited that it could be made to convey its full mean- 
ing it would probably be found that it is really more complete than 
the biologic record; in other words, the knowledge we have of fossil 
plants would go further in explaining geologic succession and deter- 
mining questions of age than it can be made to do in explaining the 
mode of development, distribution, and differentiation of plant forms 
on theearth’s suface. On the subject of geographical distribution, with 
which are inevitably bound up many questions of origin, variation, and 
descent, much has already been written. De Candolle. Hooker, Gray, 
Grisebach, Ettingshausen, Heer, and Engler have at different times and 
iu numerous ways succeeded in building up a body of valuable literature 
relating to phytogeography. Since, however, this concerns itself prin- 
cipally with explaining the origin of existing floras, chiefly dicotyledon- 
ous, it cannot reach back to the primary and doubtless ever insoluble 
problems of the differentiation of the great types of vegetation that have 
successively dominated the plant life of the globe through past geologic. 
ages. Yet, however hopeless the task when the idea of complete solu- 
tion is considered, it is nevertheless these very questions which are con- 
stantly pressing upon the thoughtful student, and he cannot suppress 
them if he will, or cease to recognize that they are legitimate, and that 
every, even the least, approach towards their solution is so much clear 
gain to science. q 


It is only quite recently that botanists have begun to turn their atten- 
tion to questions of this kind. The overthrow of the doctrine of fixity 
ef species opened the door to such considerations, rendering them legiti- 

*Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Tertiirflora Australiens. Von C. von Ettingshausen. 
Denksehr. d. k. k. Akad. d. Wissensch., Bd. XLVII, Wien, 1883. 


mate, and the doctrine of the descent of all plant forms from remote 
ancestors more or less unlike them may now be said to prevail, although 
few and feeble have been the attempts to indicate the character of the 
genetic relationships existing among living types. This general sub- 
ject will be treated later, but it is mentioned here merely to show how it 
has naturally come about that botanists are now turning their attention 
towards paleontology as the only source that holds out any promise to 
them of even partial success in explaining the development of existing 
floras. The effect of this can but be salutary, and paleobotany is likely 
to gain as much as botany proper. Even should no success be attained 
in the direction sought both sciences will gain, since it will bring them 
into more intimate relations and tend to blend them, as is natural, iuto 
ore science. Hitherto, it must be confessed, they have been studied 
too independently. In fact, not only have botanists as a rule ignored 
the existence of paleontology, but paleobotanists have generally gone 
on with their botanical classifications and discussions in total disregard 
of the elaborate systems of the former. Without comparing the results 
thus independently arrived at, it is safe to pronounce this entire 
method unwise and improper. To harmonize these results after so 
long a course of divergence will be a difficult task, and in the effort which 
is here made in this direction complete success is neither claimed nor 
hoped for. But if the existing vegetation of the globe has descended 
from its past vegetation, as almost every botanist as weli as paleontolo- 
gist now assumes, what reason can exist for having two sets of classifica- 
tion? The botanist is thus dependent upon paleontology for all his 
knowledge of vegetal development and should listen closely to the voice 
of the past and learn from it the true order in time in which the ances- 
tors of each living type appeared on the earth. Every one must see 
that this will be of the highest importance as a guide to classification, 
and will supplement in the most effective manner the data furnished by 
the developed organs of living plants. We shall ultimately see that, 
when rightly interpreted, these two sources of proof, instead of con- 
flicting, agree in a most instructive manner, rendering that system of 
classification which is in harmony with both classes of facts in a high 
degree probable and satisfactory. 

On the other hand, every candid paleobotanist must admit that he 
can understand fossil plants only as they resemble living ones, and 
that the botanist, studying the perfect specimen with all its organs of 
reproduction as well as of nutrition, can alone declare with absolute cer- 
tainty upon its identity or affinity. This mutual dependence of the two 
branches of botanical science upon each other is so apparent that it is 
certainly a matter of surprise that it has received so little recognition 
by scientific men. 





Paleobotany is a science of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless its 
dawn at the beginning of this century was preceded by a long fading 
twilight extending entirely through the eighteenth. Buteven when we 
consider the nineteenth century alone, its progress shows us that it 
has as yet scarcely entered into the full lightof day. If we judge it by 
its literature, not always a safe guide, but certainly the best one we 
possess, we find that the first half of this century produced less than 
one-fourth as much as the third quarter, and this less than the still un- 
finished fourth quarter. If we measure the literature, as we may 
roughly do, by the number of titles of books, memoirs, and papers that 
have been contributed to it, we will arrive at a rude conception of the 
accelerated rate at which the science is advancing. 

Ignoring for the present certain vague allusions that were made to 
the subject by the ancients and by writers down to the close of the 
seventeenth century, some hundred and fifty works might be named 
belonging to the eighteenth century that bear in a more or less direct 
way upon vegetable fossils, but this would exhaust the enumeration. 
A nearly equal number could be named which appeared during the first 
quarter of the nineteenth century, while fully two hundred titles, inelud- 
ing many large works, issued from the press during the second quarter 
of the century. And yet, as already shown, this was but the beginning, 
and the true season of interest and activity did not set in until the sixth 
decade, since which time this activity has steadily, if not uniformly, 
increased until the present, when the number of works and minor 
memoirs relating to fossil plants that see the light each year often 
reaches a hundred. 

Although the number of persons who have interested themselves in 
paleobotany and have published more or less upon it is very great, while 
those who have become eminent in this field may be counted by scores, 
still, if we confine ourselves to such only as may be called pre-eminent, 
who have devoted their lives chiefly and successfully to it, and have 
either constituted its true founders or enriched in an especial manner 
its literature and perfected its methods, we may restrict them to eight 
or ten. If called upon to specify, we might reduce this enumeration to 
the following great names which stand forth as the true leaders and 
heroes of this science: Adolphe Théodore Brongniart, Heinrich Robert 
Géppert, Franz Unger, Leo Lesquereux, Oswald Heer, Abramo Massa- 
longo, Baron Constantin von Ettingshausen, and the Marquis Gaston 
de Saporta. Whether we consider the number of works actually pro- 
duced, the volume of this literature, the quality or importance of their 



work, or the amount of painstaking labor devoted to the science, we find 
that much more than half of all we possess of permanent value in pa- 
leobotany has emanated from the brains, the hands, and the pens of 
these eight lifelong and laborious devotees of their chosen science. 

It thus appears that the history of paleobotany must consist largely 
in an account of the labors of a few persons, and had we nothing more 
to offer than such an account, a fairly just conception of its origin, prog- 
ress, nature, and scope might be thus afforded. But it might be justly 
objected that so limited an enumeration not only leaves out of the ac- 
count some of the most impurtant works and most fertile workers, but 
also fails to give the true relative importance to those earliest pioneers, 
who, though they cannot be classed as the true founders of the science, 
nevertheless first pointed out, and then actually broke, the way to fu- 
ture research and discovery. Let us then extend our list to cover these 
two important classes, and we still find that though much longer than 
before it is not so long as to be burdensome. By nearly trebling our 
former number the selections may be so made that, while not denying 
great eminence and merit to many others, the history of discovery in 
vegetable paleontology may be fairly represented by the labors of about 
twenty-two men. A bare enumeration of these names in the order in 
which they commenced to write would at least embrace the following: 

1, Johann Jacob Scheuchzer ...... ..-. 0.0 220 eee eee ee ee eee eee 1709 
2. Ernst Friederich, Baron von Schlotheim .........-. highs Sa eels etoaeeins 1801 
3. Kaspar Maria, Graf von Sternberg .....--.-..----- +--+ 2-2-2222 eee ee eee eee 1804 
4. Adolphe Théodore Brongniart.......- 2... 22. ceee cee eee eee eee eee 1822 
5. Henry T. M. Witham... 2.2.22. cece eee cee eee ee cece cece ee cece eee e eens 1829 
6. Heinrich Robert Goppert .... 22... 220. en ce eee ce eee ee eee eee eee ee 1834 
(cKO GUSH Obl Phi COLA. sic.c:sjaieleiraiis shia wictaresaiaiaibc wieje'dra,e sivve erased sdioalaigarsrarsareciee/S 1838 
8. Hans Bruno Geinitz ..---. 22. 2-222 cone ee cee ee cee ee wee cee teen eee 1839 
9. Edward William Binney... ..-..--- 222.2 020+ seen ee ee ce eee eee nee ten eee 1839 
LO, PPA UD OP :,2js: aie ojsiaieis. sisseroia.s sieves Sirs ob tensiaiee oe eiemie Ge cee Sasiy ce aiemmmerseic 1840 
11. Wilhelm Philip Schimper: .:.....22, ssc0c8i-e sie eck Mex sos boeeice seine esis eee sic 1840 
12. William Crawford Williamson ........-...-. ----.----5 -02- eee eee eee eee ee 1842 
1S: eo. Liesquereuk.: <.<25266 26a: a Sire peel ae ed ike eseee MERE ser are Scans eee 1845 
14. Sir John William Dawson ........---- 2202-2 cee ee ee cee nee eee eee 1845 
15. Oswald Heer ......---. ---- 12-225 eee eee eee eee nee cece ee cee ce eee tees 1846 
16. Sir Charles James Fox Bunbury .-.-..----.- +220 see eee cee ences cee eee ee 1846 
17. Abramo Massalongo ..-... .--..----- eee eee eee cee ee ee ee eee ee 1850 
18. Constantin, Freiherr von Ettingshausen ......-.-.-.--------++------ +--+ . 1850 
19. Jobn Strong Newberry ........---..- 2-22 eens ee ee eee cee cee cee eee eee 1853 
20; -Aviatist Schenk .. .<5...c3sc05 serceaeeeeseindeciesweanes teens seems nesceayes 1858 
21. Marquis Gaston de Saporta.... .--- ..---. e222 e eee ee ee ee eee cee eee eee 1860 
22, William Carruthers .... ..-.2--. 022022 cece cee cee cee eee neces eee eee ees 1865 

From this list are omitted the names of a considerable number of the 
younger active workers in this field whose thorough and successful work 
has already placed them in the front rank, but whose career is so far 
from completed that its proper characterization will belong to the fature 
historian of the science. 

GEOL 84——24 


A brief biographical sketch including the mention of some of the 
more important contributions of each of the above-named paleobotanists 
may now be made. 

1. Scheuchzer.—Switzerland, which furnished one of the last and 
greatest of all the cultivators of this science who have now passed 
away, furnished also the first name that can with any true propriety 
be placed in the list of paleobotanists. Although he wrote on many 
other subjects, and worked in some very different fields, the paleon- 
tological works of Scheuchzer are the only ones that possess any 
enduring value, and although he did not confine his studies to vege- 
table fossils, he still gave these a much larger share of his attention 
than they now receive from paleontologists in general, compared to 
that which is bestowed by them upon the other forms of extinct life. 
He was born at Ziirich in 1672, and died in the same city in 1733. 
He traveled quite extensively and made large collections of all 
kinds of curiosities, which he described and figured in numerous 
works. He regarded all fossils as relics of the Noachian deluge, and 
gained a permanent place in the history of science by describing the 
bones of a gigantic salamander as “Homo diluvii testis.” His most 
important work was his “ Herbariom diluvianum,” first published at 
Ziirich in 1709, but thoroughly revised and republished at Leyden 
in 1723. In this work many fossil plants are figured with sufficient 
accuracy for identification. Several of Scheuchzer’s other works con- 
tain mention of fossil plants, particularly his ‘‘ Museum diluvianum” 
(1716), and his “ Oryctographia helvetica” (in Part III of the “ Hel- 
vetie historia naturalis,” 1716-18), but their value to the science, as 
indeed that of all his writings, is now chiefly historical. When, how- 
ever, we consider that Scheuchzer antedated by almost a full century 
the earliest properly scientific treatises on paleobotany, we are prepared 
to overlook his deficiencies, and to regard him as the true precursor of 
the science. 

2. Schlotheim.—Ernst Friedrich, Baron von Schlotheim, of Gotha, 
whose career began with the first years of the present century, is the 
second name that stands out prominently in the history of paleobotany. 
Not that there had not been many in the course of the long century 
which separates him from Scheuchzer who had interested themselves in 
the study of fossil plants, and who collectively had accumulated the data 
which rendered the work of Schlotheim possible, but to him is due the 
credit of first marshaling the evidence from vegetable remains in support 
of a true science of geology. A sketch of the early struggles and final 
triumph of strictly scientific principles as drawn from paleontology will 
presently be presented from the phytological side, and we may therefore 
content ourselves here with mentioning the grounds upon which Schlot- 
heim’s claims rest to a place in the present enumeration. 

Born at Almenhausen (Schwarzburg-Sondershausen) in 1764, and 
educated at Géttingen and Freiburg, he took up the study of mineralogy 


and metallurgy, which naturally led him into paleontology, for which he 
had a strong attachment. In 1801 he published in Hoff’s “Magazin” 
(I, pp. 76-95), at Leipzig, his ““Abhandlung iiber die Kriuter-A bdriicke 
im Schieferthon und Sandstein der Steinkohlen-Formation,” and in 1804 
his “ Beschreibung merkwiirdiger Kraiiter-A bdriicke und Pflanzen-Ver- 
steinerungen, ein Beitrag zur Flora der Vorwelt” (I. Abtheilung), with 
fourteen plates, illustrating by accurately drawn figures a large number 
of Carboniferous plants. In 1805 he was made councilor director and 
in 1820 president of the College Cameral of Saxe-Gotha, and in 1822 
director of the Museum at Gotha. In 1820 he published at Gotha “Die 
Petrefactenkunde auf ihren jetztigen Standpunkt,” the first Heft of 
which really constitutes the second part (Abtheilung) of the work last 
mentioned, and the number of plates here reaches twenty-nine, all but 
the last two of which are devoted to fossil plants. The remainder of 
this work relates to animal remains, as does also all but Part III of the 
“Nachtrag” to the work, which appeared two years later. 

These works, though few in number, were systematic and conscien- 
tious, and constituted by far the most important contribution yet made 
to the knowledge of the primordial vegetation of the globe. They form 
the earliest strictly scientific record we have in paleobotany. 

3. Sternberg.—Kaspar Maria, Graf von Sternberg, though contempo- 
rary with Schlotheim, is mentioned after him in this enumeration, first, 
because his first contribution to paleobotany? was made three years later 
than Schlotheim’s first, and, secondly, because his great work on this 
subject was not completed until after Schlotheim’s works were all pub- 
lished and in his hands for use and criticism, and, in fact, not until after 
Schlotheim’s death. 

Sternberg was born at Regensburg in 1761 and died at Prague in 
1838. He was an assiduous collector, not only of specimens but of 
books, and when in 1822 he was made president of the Bohemian Na- 
tional Museum he turned over to it all his collections, including 4,000 
volumes of rare works. His specialty was botany, on which he wrote 
many memoirs, but scattered through the different periodicals of the 
time are to be found some dozen papers relating to fossil plants. The 
most important of all his works was his “ Versuch einer geognostich- 
botanischen Darstellung der Flora der Vorwelt,” which appeared in 
numbers from 1820 to 1838, and was translated into French by the 
Comte de Bray. To the eighth number, 1838, was appended Corda’s 
“Skizzen zur vergleichenden Phytotomie vor- und jetztweltlicher 
Pflanzen.” In this work that of all his predecessors, including Schlot- 
heim, is reviewed, and considerable progress made toward the correct 
interpretation of the record, so far as then known, of vegetable paleon- 

3 Notice sur les analogues des plantes fossiles. Annales du Muséum d’histoire natu- 
relle, 1804, Vol. V, pp. 462-470, pl. 31, 32. 

4+Essai d’un exposé géognostico-botanique de la flore du monde primitif. Ratis- 
bonne, 1820-1826, fol., 64 pl. 


4. Brongniart.—Schlotheim and Sternberg may be regarded as pio- 
neers of the science of paleobotany. Brongniart is universally admitted 
to have been its true founder. The science may properly be said to 
have been born in 1828, the year in which both the “ Prodrome” and 
the “Histoire des végétaux fossiles” appeared. It was these two works 
that gave it that powerful impetus which forced its immediate recogni- 
tion and called into its service a large corps of colaborers with Brong- 
niart, rapidly multiplying its literature and increasing the amount of 
material for its farther study. 

Adolpbe Théodore Brongniart was born at Paris in 1801 and died 
in the same city in 1876. His father, Alexandre, was eminent in 
science, and the author of at least one memoir relating to fossil plants.° 
Adolphe turned his attention early to botany and continued through 
life to devote himself to living plants; but his great specialty was the 
study of the extinct forms, and his labors in this field extend through 
nearly half a century. His very first mewoir, ‘Sur la classification et 
la distribution des végétaux fossiles en général, et sur ceux des terrains 
de sédiment supérieur en particulier,” which appeared in the ‘‘ Mémoires 
du Muséum @histoire naturelle de Paris” (pp. 203-240, 297-348) in 1822, 
was one of great merit and importance, as shadowing forth the comwnpre- 
hensive system which he was to elaborate. It was a decided improve- 
ment upon the classifications previously proposed by Steinhauer, Stern- 
berg, Martius, etc., and was later employed, with extensive modifications, 
in the “Prodrome.” ‘The great ‘‘ Histoire,” though pushed well into 
the second volume and enriched by nearly two hundred plates, was un- 
fortunately never finished, and has come down to us in this truncated 
condition. The causes which led to this result are understood to have 
been of a pecuniary character, and the author continued his investiga- 
tiovs and published his researches for many years chiefly in the “Annales 
des sciences naturelles de Paris.” His next most important work, how- 
ever, viz., his “ Tableau des genres de végétaux fossiles,” was published 
in the “ Dictionnaire universel @histoire naturelle” in 1849. The mere 
mention of these titles gives a very inadequate idea of the importance 
of Brongniart’s work. The systematic manner in which the science was 
organized and built up by him made him the highest authority on the 
subject of fossil plants, and the numerous, more or less elaborate me- 
moirs that continued to appear showed that none of the minor details 
were neglected. Of his reforms in botanical classification we shall have 
occasion later to speak more particularly. 

5. Witham.—Henry T.M. Witham, of Edinburgh, was the first of aline 
of British investigators who looked beyond the external form of fossil 
plants and undertook the systematic study of their internal structure. 
It is for this reason rather than on account of the bulk of his works that 
his name is inserted in this enumeration. He is well kuown for his de- 

5 Notice sur des végétaux fossiles traversant les couches du terrain houiller. Annales 
des Mines, Tome VI, 1821, pp. 359-370. 


scription of the great Carboniferous tree found in the quarries of Craig- 
leith, and for other similar investigations. One of his principal works 
is entitled “The Internal Structure of Fossil Vegetables found in the 
Carboniferous and Oolitic Deposits of Great Britain, described and il- 
lustrated,” Edinburgh, 1833. The illustrations are numerous and well 
executed, and form a secure basis for all subsequent researches of the 

6. Goppert.—Heinrich Robert Géppert, of Breslau, who was born in 
the year 1800 and who has died since this sketch was first drafted, was 
the most voluminous writer upon fossil plants that has been produced 
thus far. In his “Literarische Arbeiten,” prepared by himself in 1881, 
one hundred distinct works, memoirs, and papers are enumerated relat- 
ing to this subject, and several have appeared since. Nearly an equal 
number relate to living plants, and a few to medicine, which was his pro- 
fession. But his work in vegetable paleontology exceeds by far all his 
other works in its value to science, embracing as it does many large 
treatises on the Paleozoic flora (“ Flora der Uebergangsgebirge”), on the 
amber flora, on the fossil Coniferce, on the fossil ferns, etc. Especially 
important has been his microscopic work upon the structure of various 
kinds of fossil woods, particularly those of the Conifer and the Dicotyl- 
edons. Endowed with the true German devotion to his specialty, with 
keen observing and analytic powers, with a restless activity, exceptional 
opportunities, and long life, he was able to create for the science a vast 
wealth of new facts and give ita solid body of laborionsly wrought 
truth. If Bronguiart laid the foundations of paleobotany, Géppert may 
properly be said to have built its superstructure. Though born one 
year earlier than Brongniart, he did not turn his attention to fossil plants 
until the latter had been twelve years in that field. His first paper ap- 
peared in 1834, or just a half century ago.® It was historical in its 
character. Like many other men who have been destined for a great 
career, he began it by taking a bird’s-eye view of his subject. He did 
not despise the literature of his predecessors, even though they groped 
in the darkness of medieval ignorance. With patriotic pride he first told 
the story of his own countrymen’s attempts to elucidate the flora of the 
ancient world, although even in this paper, he by no means confined 
himself to the limits of Silesia, and two years later he published a 
great expansion of this historical research as an introduction to his 
first great work.” 

No attempt within our present limits of space to convey an idea 
of the true merits of Géppert’s services to paleobotany could hope to do 
them justice, and we can only point to the monument he has himself 

6 Ueber die Bestrebungen der Schlesier die Flora der Vorwelt zu erliiutern. Schle- 
. sische Provincialblitter, August und September 1834, Also in Karsten und Dechen’s 
Archiv, Band VIII, 1835, pp. 232-249, 
‘7 Systema filicum fossilium : Die fossilen Farnkriéuter. Nov. Act. Acad. Cas. Leop. 
Car., Tom. XVII, suppl., pp. 1-76. 


reared, and enroll his name alongside those of Brongniart, Unger, and 

7. Oorda.—The propriety of placing Corda’s name in this roll of honor 
may be questioned by some, but his contributions to paleobotany were 
important, and there can be no doubt that had his life not been prema- 
turely cut off they would have been far more so. Born in 1810 at Reich- 
enberg, Bohemia, he early turned his attention to botany, and espe- 
cially to close histological investigations in fangology. Humboldt, 
attracted by his productions, called him to Berlin in 1829, and Stern- 
berg recalled him to Prague in 1834. His “Skizzen zur vergleichenden 
Phytotomie,” appended to Heft 8 of Sternberg’s ‘Flora der Vorwelt,” 
was a valuable addition to that work, and led the way to his two other 
principal works, “ Beitrige zur Flora der Vorwelt,” Prague, 1845, and 
“Die fossilen Pflanzen der béhmischeu Kreideformation” (in Reuss’s 
“ Versteinerungen der béhmischen Kreideformation”), Stuttgart, 1846. 
In these works and other of his memoirs a large number of species of 
fossil plants are named, described, and carefully figured, forming a 
permanent tribute to the growing science. In 1847 Prince Colloredo 
sent Corda to Texas to collect scientific material. He remained there 
two years, making large accumulations, and started back with them in 
the Bremen steamer Victoria, which was lost in the middle of the At- 
lantic, and Corda, with all his scientific treasures, went down with her. 

8. Geinitz—Only a comparatively small number of Geinitz’s papers 
relate to paleobotany, and a still smaller number are devoted exclu- 
sively to that subject; and yet not less than thirty-five titles belong to 
this department of paleontology. Born at Altenburg in 1814, he has 
stood for a full half century in the front rank of continental geologists, 
and still continues his indefatigable labors. His protracted studies into 
the age and character of the Quadersandstein formation of Germany, 
in which so many fossil plants have been found, have shed much light 
upon this difficult horizon, while his investigations in the Permian 
(Dyas, Zechstein), the Carboniferous, aud the Graywacke have always 
led him to study and describe the floras of these periods. We thus pos- 
sess in his works a geological authenticity for very many fossil plants, 
which all paleobotanists know how to appreciate. His * Characteristik 
der Schichten und Petrefakten des sichs.-béhmischen Kreidegebirges,” 
Dresden, 1839-42, appears to have been his first work relating to our 
subject, and his paleobotanical labors therefore date from 1839. 

9. Binney.—If Witham deserved enumeration in our present list for 
founding the British school of what may be called phytopaleontological 
histologists, Binney must be admitted in recognition of the extent and 
importance of his researches in this department. He seems to have 
commenced publishing the results of his investigations in 1839,' and 

8 The first of his papers whose title appears in the ‘‘ Royal Society Catalogue” is 
‘‘On a Microscopic Vegetable Skeleton found in Peat near Gainsborough.” British 
Association Report, 1839 (Part II), pp. 71, 72. 


continued them without interruption to the end of his life. His most 
important work, on the “Structure of Fossil Plants from the Carbonif- 
erous Strata,” published by the Paleontographical Society of London, 
was commenced in 1868. His death took place in the year 1882. 

10. Unger.—Franz Unger of Steiermark, who was born in 1800 and 
died in 1870, was one of the most illustrious of European botanists and 
paleontologists. His memoirs and books on paleobotany are only less 
numerous than those of Géppert, and among them is an unusually large 
number of monographs of great value. His investigations were chiefly 
confined to the more recent formations, and his “Chloris protogea,” 
“Flora von Sotzka,” “TIconographia plantarum fossilium,” and “Sylloge 
plantarum fossilium” are worthy of special mention. His “Synopsis 
plantarum fossilium ” and ‘Genera et species” are systematic attempts 
to compile the known data of the science in condensed and convenient 
form. His first paper? on the subject was published in 1840. 

11. Schimper.—Although Schimper contributed a paper” on fossil 
plants as early as 1840, and was associated with Mougeot in preparing 
their important “Monographie des plantes fossiles du grés bigarré de 
la chaine des Vosges” in 1844, as also with Kéchlin-Schlumberger in 
his “‘Terrain de transition des Vosges” in 1862, still, but for his great 
“Traité de paléontologie végétale,” the third volume of which appeared 
in 1874, it is evident that this eminent bryologist would not have 
been entitled to be also ranked among the great paleobotanists. The 
“Traité” is unquestionably the most important contribution yet made 
to the science. Although necessarily to a large degree a compilation 
of the work of others, still it is by no means wanting in originality, 
and contains a great amount of new matter. Its chief merit, however, 
is in its conception and plan as a complete manual of systematic 
paleobotany. The classification is highly scientific and rational, and 
the discussion of abstruse points in defense of it is acute and cogent. 
Every species of fossil plant known to the author is described in Latin, 
and much independence is manifested in the rejection of synonyms. 
Very important is the geological classification at the end of Volume II, 
showing that the author had clear ideas of the uses of the science. The 
selections for the atlas are always the very best, and not a few of the 
figures are original. Although not in possession of all the extant data, 
particularly from America,! Schimper succeeded in supplying in this 
work the greatest need of paleobotany. His great talent as an organ- 

8Ueber ein Lager vorweltlicher Pflanzen auf der Stangalpe. Steyermarkische 
Zeitschrift, Gritz, 1840. I have only been able to consult this memoir in Leonhard & 
Bronn’s Neue Jahrbiicher (1842, pp. 607, 608), which may not contain it in extenso. 

10Baumfarne, Schachtelhalme, Cycadeen, Aethophyllum, Albertia * * * im bunten 
Sandstein der Vogesen; Hysterium auf einem Pappel-Blatte der Wetterauer Braun- 
kohle. Leonhard und Broun’s Neue Jahrbiicher, 1840, pp. 336-338. Communication 
dated 14. Miirz 1840. 

“See ‘The American Journal of Science,” 3d series, Vol. XXVII (April. 1884), p. 296. 


izer and text-book writer was again seen in his able contribution to 
Zittel’s “Handbuch der Paléontologie.” 

Wilhelm Philip Schimper was born at Dosenheim (Alsace) in 1808, 
and died at Strasbourg, where most of his work had been done, in 1880. 
He became director of the Museum of National History of Strasbourg 
in 1839. 

12. Williamson.—_In Mr. W. C. Williamson we have a third of the 
line of eminent British paleobotanists, whose chief attention has been 
directed to the study of the internal structure of Carboniferous plants, 
and the one who at the present time unquestionably stands at the head 
of this school of investigators. If we include his paper “‘On the Origin 
of Coal,” published in the report of the British Association for 1842 
(Part IT, pp. 48, 49), his place would be where we have assigned bim, 
but his special work upon the plants themselves seems not to have 
commenced until 1851, and then to have been more or less interrupted 
until 1868, since which time it has been incessant, culminating in his 
great work “On the Organization of the Fossil Plants of the Coal 
Measures,” which runs through so many volumes of the ‘‘ Philosophical 
Transactions.” Of the merits of this work, as of all of this author’s 
investigations, it is certainly unnecessary to speak here. 

13. Lesquereux.—Mr. Leo Lesquereux of Columbus, Ohio, is one of those 
acquisitions which America has so often made at Europe’s expense when 
political turmoils arise there and make liberty dearer even than country. 
He was of that little band, which also included Agassiz and Guyot, who 
were compelled to abandon Switzerland in 1847 and 1848, on the occasion 
of the breaking up of the Academy of Neuchatel and the coming into 
power of the so-called Liberal party. His ancient family name was Les- 
cure, afterwards Lescurieux, and finally Lesquereux, and his immediate 
ancestors were French Huguenots. He was born November 18, 1806, at 
Fleurier, canton of Neuchatel. His father was a manufacturer of watch 
springs and endeavored to teach him that business, though, since bis 
health was somewhat delicate, his mother preferred to prepare him for 
the ministry ; but Science had marked him for her own, and no power 
could withdraw him from nature. With a taste for plants in geveral, 
he was led by circumstances first to the study of mosses, then naturally 
to that of peat, and lastly to that of fossil plants. The government of 
Neuchatel was then greatly interested in the protection of peat bogs on 
account of the difficulty of procuring fuel for the poor, and offered a 
prize (a gold medal of 20 ducats) for the best memoir on the formation 
and preservation of peat. Lesquereux competed and won the prize. 
His prize memoir” gained a wide reputation, was extensively copied, 
and is still quoted as one of the best on the subject. 

2 Quelques recherches sur les marais tourbeux en général. Mémoires de la Société 
des sciences naturelles de Neuchatel, Tome III, 1845. (See summary in the Archives 
des sciences phys. et nat. de Gendve, Tome VI, p. 154.) 


The connecting link between this study and that of fossil plants was 
supplied two years later, when he wrote a short paper “Sur les plantes 
qui forment la houille,” 

On his arrival in America he studied the coal formations of Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, and other States, and his 
reports appear in those of the geological surveys of all of these States. 
Especially important are those upon the coal flora of Pennsylvania. 
The first of these appeared in the second volume of the report of H. D. 
Rogers, in 1858, consisting of some quite elaborate “General Remarks,” 
and a “Catalogue of the Fossil Plants which have been Named or De- 
scribed from the Coal Measures of North America.” This is accom. 
panied by twenty-three excellent plates. But this was a mere begin- 
ning, for when the second geological survey of Pennsylvania was un- 
dertaken Mr. Lesquereux was employed to work up the coal flora, 
which appeared in 1880 in a volume of text and an atlas, the most im- 
portant work on carboniferous plants that has been produced in Amer- 
ica, A third volume, supplementary to these, has just been issued. 

In 1868 Mr. Lesquereux began the study of the floras of later forma- 
tions in the West, and contributed an important paper on the Cretaceous 
leaves of Nebraska to the “American Journal of Science.”"* Dr. F. V. 
Hayden employed him to work up the eollections of his surveys of the 
Territories, and important papers on the subject appeared in the annual 
reports of the survey for 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874. In the last 
of these years appeared his ‘Cretaceous Flora,” forming Volume VI of 
the quarto reports. In 1878 the seventh volume of these quarto reports 
was published, a still larger work, devoted to what he called the “ Ter- 
tiary Flora,” though a very large proportion of: the species were from 
the Laramie Group. The eighth of these volumes will also be by Mr. 
Lesquereux, and will consist of a thorough revision of the entire Creta- 
ceous and Tertiary floras of North America. Mr. Lesquereux is still liv- 
ing, and though infirm with age is actively engaged in bryological and 
paleontological studies. 

14. Dawson.—To Sir J. W. Dawson is due the greater part of the knowl- 
edge we possess concerning the vegetable paleontology of Canada and the 
British North American provinces in general. His numerous papers, run- 
ning back as far as 1845," are almost exclusively confined to the descrip- 
tion and illustration of material from this part of the world, and all 
except a few recent ones relate to the older formations of the East. 

i3 Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles (Bibliotheque universelle), Tome VI, 
1847, pp. 158-162. Geneve. 

144Qn Some Cretaceous Fossil Plants from Nebraska, Am, Journ. Sci., 2d series, 
Vol, XLVI (July, 1868), pp. 91-105. 

15 His paper ‘On the Newer Coal Formation of the Eastern Part of Nova Scotia” 
(Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., Vol. I, 1845, pp. 322-330) merely names a few genera 
occurring there, but his ‘Notices of Some Fossils Found in the Coal Formation of 
Nova Scotia” (1. c., Vol. II, 1846, pp. 132-136), giving his views on Sternbergia, at- 
tracted immediate attention. ; 


His reports upon “The Fossil Plants of the Devonian and Upper Silu- 
rian Formations of Canada,” upon “The Fossil Plants of the Lower 
Carboniferous and Millstone Grit Formations of Canada,” and upon 
“The Fossil Plants of the Erian (Devonian) and Upper Silurian Forma- 
tions of Canada” are monographs of especial value. A geologist rather 
than a botanist, he has done excellent service, not only in elucidating 
the important problems of Acadian geology, but also in demonstrating 
the value and legitimacy of the evidence furnished by vegetable remains. 

Dawson was born at Pictou, Nova Scotia, in the year 1820, and though 
educated at Edinburgh, he returned to his native country and has de- 
voted his whole life to the study of its geology and paleontology. He<s 
a fellow of the Royal Society of London and of the Geological Society, 
and has long honored the well-known post of Principal of McGill Uni- 
versity, Montreal. We learn with great satisfaction, though almost too 
late to be fittingly mentioned here, that the order of knighthood has 
just been conferred upon him on the occasion of the meeting of the Brit- 
ish Association in his adopted city. 

15. Heer.—The numerous obituary notices that have so recently ap- 
peared in all the scientific journals render it unnecessary to give in this 
place any extended biographical sketch of this eminent savant. He was 
born at Glarus, Switzerland, in 1809, and died at Lausanne in 1883, after 
having long filled the chair of botany in the University of Ziirich. Vege- 
table paleontologists note with some surprise that he is mentioned by 
his biographers chiefly as an entomologist,'§ and naturally wonder how 
great must have been his eminence in that department to overshadow 
his vast and invaluable labors in the domain of fossil plants. 

He commenced writing upon this latter subject in 1846. The first 
volume of his great work, “Flora tertiaria Helvetie,” appeared in 1855, 
the second in 1856, and the third in 1859. The exceedingly great care, 
accuracy, and thoroughness with which this chef d’euvre of science was 
-executed, especially in the matter of illustration, is a marvel to com- 
template. Nothing comparable to it had appeared before, and nothing 
equal to it has appeared since. He became interested in the fossil floras 
of remote parts of the globe, and among the first of his memoirs on such 
subjects was one that may be found in the Proceedings of the Academy 
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 1858 (pp. 265-266), on the “ Fos- 
sil plants of the Lower Cretaceous beds of Kansas and Nebraska.” He 
-also figured the ‘‘ Phyllites Crétacées du Nébraska,” collected by Marcou 
and Capellini.% In 1866 his memoirs upon the fossil floras of the Are- 
tic regions commenced to appear, and to this fertile subject he devoted 
the greater part. of the rest of his life. The first volume of his “ Flora 

16 Science,” Vol. II, p. 583, 1883; “Nature,” Vol. XXVIII, Oct. 25, 1883. 

The first paper of which there is a record is the one “ Ueber die von ihm an der 
hohen Rhone entdekten fossilen Pflanzen,” which appeared in the Verhandlungen 
der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft for 1846, pp. 35-38. 

‘8Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft der Naturforscher, Ziirich 
1866, Mém. I. : 


fossilis arctica” appeared in 1869, the second in 1871, and the remaining 
five at intervals of about two years,the seventh and last coming out 
in the year of the author’s death. With the exception of the first vol- 
ume, this colossal work consists entirely of a compilation of more or less 
independent memoirs, which were published as fast as prepared in vari- 
ous scientific periodicals in several languages, and which are merely put 
together into volumes of convenient thickness. Each memoir has its 
own independent pagination, generally that of the volume of Transac- 
tions in which it originally appeared, all of which renders it very incon- 
venient for consultation, but cannot detract from its great value as a 
reservoir of facts. 

Bunbury.—It may be doubtful whether the paleobotanical works of Sir 
Charles Bunbury are of sufficient importance to entitle him to enumer- 
ation among the principal cultivators of that science, but they have cer- 
tainly been quite numerous and covered a wide range of subjects, both 
geographically and botanically. He began by elaborating certain ma- 
terial from the United States’? and the British provinces,” collected by Sir 
Charles Lyell and Dr. Dawson, and was the first to recognize the merits 
of the views of the latter respecting the fossils known as Sternbergia from 
the coal fields of Sydney. But he also worked up material from France, 
Portugal, Madeira, and India, as well as from Yorkshire and other parts 
of England. His investigations have been chiefly confined to carbon- 
iferous fossils, but in a quite recent work”! he has published some inter- 
esting views on the subject of nervation which may prove of value. 

17. Massalongo.—Abramo Massalongo, the first of the Italian school 
of paleobotanists whose work claims our attention here, commenced pub- 
lishing in 1850,” and continued with great activity until 1861. He con. 
fined his investigations almost exclusively to material from his own 
country, and contributed more to the elucidation of the fossil floras of 
Italy than any other author. The number of his papers is very large, 
considering the comparatively short period during which he was per- 
mitted to work, and an unusually large percentage of them are mono- 
graphs of considerable size. His greatest work, for which Scarabelli 
contributed the stratigraphical part, was his “Studii sulla flora fossile 
e geologia stratigraphica del Senigalliese,” Imola, 1859, but of which 

19Qn some remarkable Fossil Ferns from Frostburg, Md., collected by Mr. Lyell. 
Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1846, Vol. II, pp. 82-91. Observations on the Fossil Plants of 
the Coal Field of Tuscaloosa, Ala., etc. Silliman’s Journal, 1846, pp. 228-233. Descrip- 
tion of Fossil Plants from the Coal Field near Richmond, Va., Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 
1847, Vol. III, pp. 281-288. 

20 Notes on some Fossil Plants, communicated by Mr. Dawson, from Nova Scotia. 
Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1846, Vol. II, pp. 136-139. On Fossil Plants from the Coal 
Formation of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Ibid., 1847, Vol. III., pp. 433-428, and nu- 
merous similar memoirs. 

2 Botanical Fragments. London, 1883. 

2 See his Schizzo geognostico sulla Valle di Progno (Preludium Flore fossilis Bol- 
censis), Verona, 1850. Collett. dell’ Adige, 14 sett., 1850. 


his “Synopsis flore fossilis Senogalliensis,” Verona, 1858, forms an in- 
tegral part, having been prepared from the plates of the former, to 
which reference is constantly made. This work is thoroughly illustrated 
by forty-five large quarto plates of well executed but not very well 
printed figures, and is one of the most important contributions to the 
Tertiary flora of Europe. It virtually and fittingly closed the too short 
but perhaps too active career of one of Italy’s most talented scientists 

18. Ettingshausen.—Since the death of Oswald Heer the great merits 
of Baron von Ettingshausen’s paleobotanical researches, always highly 
appreciated, have seemed to command especial attention. Beginning 
this career simultaneously with Massalongo in the year 1850,” he has had 
the advantage over the Italian savant of being permitted to continue it 
uninterruptedly under the most favorable auspices down to the present 
time. Heimmediately began his studies in the Tertiary flora of the Aust- 
riau Monarchy, and published the Tertiary Flora of Vienna in 1851. 
His “Beitriige zur Flora der Vorwelt,” “‘Proteaceen der Vorwelt,” and 
numerous lesser papers appeared in the same year. From the number 
of important papers that appeared during 1852 and 18533 it is clear that 
he must have been very active, entering as he did into the study of 
Paleozoic and Mesozoic floras, as well as continuing his work ou the 
Tertiary plants. It was, however, in 1854 that he laid the foundation 
for that deserved renown which he now enjoys in taking up under such 
extraordinarily favorable conditions the investigation of the true prin- 
ciples of nervation in dicotyledonous leaves. The process of nature- 
printing, or physiotypy (Naturselbstdruck), had been invented in the 
Austrian imperial court and state printing-office by Auer and Wor- 
ring, and Ettingshausen at once perceived its special applicability to 
the science of botany. Recognizing the vast importance of this dis- 
covery to paleobotany he obtained permission to employ the new method 
and proceeded to prepare his first monograph ‘“ Ueber die Nerva- 
tion der Blatter und blattartigen Organe bei den Euphorbiaceen mit 
besonderer Riicksicht auf die vorweltlichen Formen,”™ which he fol- 
lowed up with a similar memoir, “ Ueber die Nervation der Bliitter der 
Papilionaceen.* To the first of these memoirs was prefixed a brief 
synopsis of the classes of uervation found in eupborbiaceous leaves. 
Availing himself of the efforts in this direction which had been pre- 
viously made by Leopold von Buch,” Bianconi,’? and others (he seems 

No less than four of his papers appeared in that year, one in the Sitzungsberichte 
of the Vienna Academy, one in the first volume of the Austrian Geological Jahrbuch, 
and two in the sixth volume of Haidinger’s Collections of Memoirs. 

*4Sitzungsberichte d. Akad. d. Wiss. Wien. Bd. XII, 1854, pp. 138-154, Pl. I-X VII. 

% Loe. cit., pp. 600-663, PI. I-XXII. 

Ueber die Blattnerven und ihre Vertheilung. Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- 
demie der Wissenschaft, 1852, pp. 42-49, with plate. 

"7Giuseppe G. Bianconi. Sul sistema vascolare delle foglie, considerato come carat- 
tere distintivo per la determinazione delle filliti. N. Ann. d. Sc. Nat. Bologna, 1838, 
Ann. I, Tom. I, pp. 343-390, Pl. VII-XIII. 


not to have been acquainted with De Candolle’s “Organogénie”), he 
proposed a classification and terminology, which, so far as they weut, 
Heer was willing to adopt,” and which are in common use by paleo- 
botanists at the present time. In 1855 Ettingshausen and Pokorny 
received instructions to prepare a work: for the Paris Exposition to be 
held in 1867 that should thoroughly illustrate the application of the 
nature-printing process to the science of botany. The result was that 
immense and astonishing production entitled “ Physiotypia plantarum 
Austriacarum,” with its six enormous volumes of most exquisite plates, 
not only illustrating the leaves of the trees and shrubs, the flowers with 
their petals, sepals, stamens, and pistils, but the entire plants wherever 
within the ample limits of size, and these stand forth from the plates 
in actual relief like a veritable hortus siccus. This grand success was 
followed up by various monographs upon the nervation of certain impor- 
tant orders, as the Celastrinew, Bombacee, Graminex, etc. Aided 
further by this magic process he commenced in 1858” a series of 
works illustrating the skeletons only of leaves, the most important 
of which is his “ Blattskelette der -Dykotyledonen,” which appeared 
in 1861. The way thus cleared for the successtul study of the Terti- 
ary floras of the world, Ettingshausen, from this time on, has continued 
his important investigations in this field, and each year our knowledge 
of fossil plants is increased and extended by his enlightened con- 
tributions. It would carry us quite beyond our limits to attempt an 
eumeration here even of the most important of these memoirs, but 
we cannot complete our brief sketch of Ettingshausen’s invaluable 
labors without a passing reference to such productions as his Flora 
of the Tertiary basin of Bilin, his Cretaceous Flora of Niederschéna, 
his Floras of Wetterau, Steiermark, Radoboj, Sagor, etc. Coupled 
with his great powers of accurate observation and strictly scientific 
method of investigation, Ettingshausen displays an unusually broad 
grasp of the deeper problems which paleobotany presents and has un- 
doubtedly been for many years far in advance of all his contemporaries 
in this field in correctly apprehending and announcing the true laws of 
phytochorology and plant development. 

Baron von Ettingshausen was born in 1826 at Vienna, and is a member 
of many learned societies and scientific bodies. 

19. Newberry.—Dr. John Strong Newberry, of the School of Mines, 
Columbia College, New York, one of the most eminent American geolo- 
gists, was born at New Windsor, Conn., December 22 , 1822, and gradu- 
ated at Western Reserve College in 1846. Two years later he took the 
degree of M.D. from Cleveland Medical College, Ohio. Before com- 
menciog the practice of his profession at Cleveland, in 1851, he spent 
two years in Europe. On his return opportunities soon presented them- 

Flora Tertiaria Helvetia, Band II, pp. 2-6. 
2The first was his “ Blattskelette der Apetalen,” Wiener Denkschriften, Band XV, 

1853, pp. 181-272, with fifty-one plates. 


selves for joining parties of exploration in the far West, and he finally 
became a member of the celebrated Ives Exploring Expedition. With 
a special fondness for geology and mining he combined a deep interest in 
paleontology, in all of which specialties he has distinguished himself. 
The Carboniferous formation of Ohio had early interested him much, 
and especially the vegetable remains found embedded in it, and as far 
back as 1853 we find him reading papers before the American Associa- 
tion, ‘‘On the structure and affinities of certain fossil plants of the Car- 
boniferous era,” and ‘‘On the Carboniferous Flora of Ohio, with descrip- 
tions of fifty new species of fossil plants.”*° In 1859 he reported upon 
the fossils, including plants, of the Macomb Exploring Expedition,” in 
1861 those of Lieutenant Ives’s Expedition,” and in 1863, those of the 
Northwest Boundary Commission.” Probably the most important of his 
paleobotanical memoirs thus far published was his “ Notes on the Later 
Extinct Floras of North America,” which appeared in the Annals of the 
New York Lyceum of Natural History for April, 1868. No plates ac- 
companied this memoir, but a large number of the plants described had 
been figured by Dr. Newberry, which he had expected to be published 
by the Geological Survey of the Territories, but none appeared until 
1873.** He has, however, been more or less constantly engaged since 
that time in figuring the large collections which have been reaching him 
each year at the School of Mines, and over one hundred plates have, up 
to the present writing, been prepared, most of which are printed and 
awaiting the text of a large work which will be published by the United 
States Geological Survey. 

20. Schenk.—Hofrath Dr. August Schenk, professor of botany at 
the University of Leipsic, was born at Hallein, Upper Austria, in 1815, 
and held the chair of botany at Miinich and Wiirzbach before being 
called to that of Leipsic. His paleobotanical researches have been 
chiefly directed towards a little known horizon lying between the Bunt- 
ersandstein and the Lias, and upon this dark region they have shed a 
flood of light. His earlier papers* related to fossil plants from the Keu- 
per, chiefly collected in the vicinity of Bamberg and Bayreuth, and, in 
addition to material collected by himself and Dr. Kirchner, he elaborated 
that brought together by the Count of Miinster, but later he turned his 
attention to some rich plant beds overlying these strata and situated in- 
termediate between them and the Lias. It is upon this narrow horizon 

20Proceedings, pp. 157-166. 

51 Report of the Expedition, pp. 142-148, Pl. IV-VIII. 

* Report upon the Colorado River of the West, by Lieut. Joseph C. Ives, Washington, 
1861, pp. 129-132., Pl. IIL 

* Boston Journal of Natural History, Vol. VII, 1863, pp. 506-524, 

*INustrations of Cretaceous and Tertiary plants. Washington, Government Printing 
Office, 1878. 

35 The earliest seems to have been ‘ Ueber einem in der Keuperformation bei Wiirz- 
burg aufgefundenen fossilen Farnstamm (Chelepteris strongylopeltis). Verhandlun- 

gen der Wiirzburger physicalisch—medicinschen Gesellschaft, Band VIII, 1858, pp. 


that he has bestowed the closest attention, and his final monograph 
upon the subject, which, dropping the term Rhetic, he has entitled ‘‘ Die- 
fossile Flora der Grenzschichten des Keupers und Lias Fratikens,” is a 
very valuable contribution to paleobotany. Still later (1868), he took 
ap the Muschelkalk beds of Recoaro, first noticed by Catullo,® but 
treated by a number of authors, and produced a finely illustrated little. 
work “ Ueber die Pflanzenreste des Muschelkalkes von Recoaro.” Be- 
sides his “Beitrage zur Flora der Vorwelt” in the Palwontographica,. 
and numerous minor contributions, Dr. Schenk has elaborated the fossil 
plants for Baron Richthofen’s ‘“China,”*? and, since Schimper’s death, 
has gone on with the vegetable department of Zittel’s ‘‘ Handbuch der 

21. Saporta.—The death of Professor Heer broke up the illustrious: 
trio of continental paleobotanists who had so long taken the lead in the 
study of the fossil plants of the Tertiary formation—Heer, Ettings- 
hausen, and Saporta. The two that remain are of more nearly the same 
age, aud in many respects admit of a more ready comparison; still their 
fields of labor are so well separated that no conflict can occur in their 
operations, and both seem likely to continue uninterrupted for many 
years their already extensive investigations. 

The Marquis (until a year ago Count) Gaston de Saporta, was bormr 
in the year 1823 at Saint Zacharie, department of Var, in Provence, 
France, and it was in the near vicinity of his native place that he first 
began” his paleobotanical studies, and to the thorough illustration of 
the fossil botany of Provence he has always devoted his best energies. 
His “Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France 4 Pépoque terti- 
aire,’ begun in 1863, has thus far remained his chef @euvre, and most: 
of the localities treated in this work are situated in Provence. In 1873. 
he published “La revision de la flore fossile des gypses d’Aix,” which 
was practically a revision of the “Etudes.”41| Among his other more 
important works on Cenozoic floras may be mentioned his ‘“ Prodrome 
dune flore fossile des travertins de Sézanne,”” in which the flora of the 
Eocene, or Paleocene, as he terms it, is better set forth than in any other 
work, and his “Essai sur l’état de la végétation 4 |’époque des marnes- 

36Nuovi annali di scienzi natur. di Bologna, serie II, Tom. V. 1846, pp. 81-107 (see 
p. 106). 

37 Band IV, pp. 209-269, 284-288, Pl. KXXX-LIV. 

38 TT, Band, III. Lieferung. 

39 Note sur les plantes fossiles de la Provence, Lausanne. Bulletin de la Société vau- 
doise des sciences naturelles, Tome VI, 1860, pp. 505-514. Examen analytique des. 
flores tertiaires de Provence, Ziirich, 1861. 

40 Annales des sciences naturelles—Botanique—4? série, tomes XVI XVII, XIX; 5¢ 
série, Tomes III, IV, VIII, IX, 1661-68. 

4 Loe. cit., 5¢ série, Tome XVIII. 

42Mémoires de la Société géologique de France, Tome VIII, 1865, pp. 289-438, Pl.. 


heersiennes de Gelinden,” in which, as in his “Recherches sur les végé- 
taux fossiles de Meximieux,” he was assisted by Prof. A. F. Marion. 
But Saporta’s contributions do not all relate to the Tertiary. Of nearly 
equal importance have been his studies in the Jurassic flora of France. 

The three volumes of his “Plantes jurassiques,”* which have already 
appeared, with accompanying atlas, constitute, without any doubt, the 
most exhaustive treatise upon the vegetable paleontology of that hori- 
zon that has thus far been produced. Its value is by no means confined 
to the light it throws upon the Mesozoic flora of France. The manner ip 
which the determinations are supported by comparison with other fos- 
sil and with living floras, renders the work a thoroughly general ove. 
Indeed no better treatise exists on the histology of coniferous stems and 
on the classifications of the Conifers in general than is to be found in 
the introduction to the third volume of this work. Besides numerous 
other minor descriptive papers and memoirs of greater or less length and 
importance on fossil plants, Marquis Saporta has written two interesting 
popular books on the subject. That entitled “‘Le Monde des Plantes 
avant Papparition de Vhomme,” which appeared in 1879, is unquestion- 
ably the best popular treatise in this branch of science. The first vol- 
ume of the work on ‘‘L’evolution du régne végétal,” confined entirely to 
astudy of the Cryptogams from the point of view of evolution, appeared 
in 1281 as one of the International Scientific Series, though it seems 
never to have been translated into English. In this work Professor 
Marion was associated. Other volumes showing the evidence of phe- 
nogamous plants for the doctrine of evolution are anxiously looked for. 
Saporta has long been a strong supporter of this class of views, and his 
writings display a broad and enlightened spirit. 

22. Carruthers.—The subject of this sketch was born at Moffat, Scot- 
land, and educated in Edinburgh. In 1859 he entered the British Museum 
as assistant in botany, and became keeper of the department of botany in 
1871. He began his paleobotanical work by re-editing Lindley and Hut- 
ton’s “ Fossil Flora of Great Britain,” and is understood to be now prepar- 
ing asupplementtoit. During this time he has been constantly contribut- 
ing articles upon various points connected with his investigations. The 
number of such papers is very large and their merit so great that his 
title to a place in the present enumeration will not probably be disputed. 
Although pursuing somewhat the same line of investigation as the other 
British paleobotanists, he still has given himself a much wider field. 
He has not limited his researches to the Paleozoic, but has made incur- 
sions into the Mesozoic and even into the Tertiary. Fossil fruits have 
formed a favorite study for him, and his investigations have widely 

Mémoires couronnés de l’Académie des sciences de Belgique, Bruxelles, 4¢ édition, 
Tome XXXVII, No. 6, 1873. 

“ Archives du Muséum Whistoire naturelle de Lyon, 4¢ livraison, 1876, p. 131. 

# Paléontologie francaise. Série 2. Végétaux, 1873, 1875, and 1876-1883. 


expanded this field of knowledge. Mr. Carruthers was elected a fellow 
of the Royal Society: in 1871. 

In terminating this enumeration here it is evident that the limit of 
space and not of matter has been the motive. The aim has been rather 
to consider the great names in the past history of the science than to 
venture an estimate of the worth of present workers in it, and if a num- 
ber of living representatives have been named it is because their services 
have already been so great as to have given a special color to that his- 
tory and to afford a safe basis for judging of their future work. With 
most of the many present devotees of paleobotany this last condition at 
least does not exist, and the fear of coming far short of doing them 
justice, at least in the estimation of their future biographers, has de- 
terred me from introducing their names into this brief résumé. 

But aside from this class no little difficulty has been encountered in 
choosing from among the older workers, and although in many cases 
no two would agree where the line should be drawn, it is by no means 
improbable that some obvious mistakes have been made, and that names 
which have been omitted should have been substituted for-some that 
have been mentioned. Defects of this class, and also those of various 
other kinds, may, however, be partially remedied in the treatment of 
the next division of the subject, in which the field will be less restricted 
in this respect, and we shall look more especially to the work done than 
to the men who have done it. 



Science often has its origin in wonder at unexplained phenomena, and 
there is no science of which this is more true than of paleontology. 
Nearly all the early writers openly avow that they have been chiefly 
spurred on to undertake and carry on their investigations by an ‘‘eager 
curiosity” respecting the objects they were treating, and the first col- 
lections of such objects were looked upon simply as curiosities, while 
what have since become the greatest scientific institutions in the world 
sometimes betray their origin by perpetuating the original names 
expressive of their sense of wonder.” 

No greater objects of wonder have presented themselves to man’s 
consideration than the fossils which from the earliest times have been 
observed in different parts of the earth’s crust. The efforts of the ra- 
tional mind to interpret these phenomena, although they may seem 
amusing to the unthinking, are really of deep philosophic and even 
scientific interest. It may surprise some to learn that the conclusions 

46 Parkinson’s Organic Remains of a Former World, 1804, p. v. 
For example the great Academia Casarea Leopoldino-Carolina Nature Curiosorum, 
founded in 1670 at Frankfort-on-the-Main. 
GEOL 84 25 


reached by the ancients were far more correct than those drawn twelve 
to sixteen centuries Jater, from much more ample data. Strabo, Xeno- 
phanes, Xanthus, Eratosthenes, and even Herodotus believed that the 
fossil shells they had seen once contained living animals, and that in 
process of time they had been turned into stone. They further con- 
cluded that the mountains in which they were found imbedded were 
once under the sea. These doctrines were known to the Romans, and 
of their popular acceptance by the cultivated classes we have evidence 
in the familiar lines of Ovid’s “ Metamorphosis.” “ This view was also 
shared by Pliny and other post-Augustan writers, and even Tertullian® 
did not perceive its inconsistency with Christian philosophy, which caused 
its complete rejection during the next thirteen centuries. Of the fact 
of this long stagnation not only in this but in nearly all other depart- 
ments of science there is no question, but as to its cause there are dif- 
ferences of opinion which this is not the place to discuss. The doubt- 
less charitable attempt, however, to throw the responsibility back upon 
Aristotle and his famous doctrine of generatio equivoca,*' merely because 
that doctrine was found more in harmony with the cosmogony which 
became ingrafted upon those sombre ages, should, in the single interest 
of historic truth, be condemned, while it is too late in the scientific 
epoch to make it either necessary or prudent to hesitate in confessing 
that the reasoning powers of man were virtually destroyed during that 
period by the almost universal and thoroughly honest acceptance of a 
false cosmogony.” 

48 Vidi ego, quod fuerat quondam solidissima tellus 
Esse fretum, vidi factas ex equore terras, 
Et procul a pelago conche jacuere marine, 
Et vetus inventa est in montibus ancora summis.” 
(Lib. XV, 262.) 

49“ Mutavit et totus orbis aliquando, aquis omnibus obsitus; adhuc maris conche et 
buccing perigrinantur in montibus, cupientes Platoni probare etiam ardua fluitasse.” 
(De Pallio, II.) ; 

50 “During the next thirteen or fourteen centuries fossil remains of animals and 
plants seem to have attracted so little attention that-few references are made to them 
by writers of this period. During these ages of darkness all departments of knowl- 
edge suffered alike, and feeble repetitions of ideas derived from the ancients seein to 
have been about the only contributions of that period to natural science.” (Address 
of Prof. O. C. Marsh as president of the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, 1879. -‘ Proceedings,” Vol. XXVIII, p. 4.) 

51 “In den darauf folgenden Zeiten verdriingte die aristotelische und nachherige 
scholastiche Philosophie die Naturkunde, wobei man nattirlich auch die Petrefakten 
fast ginzlich vernachlassigte und sie fast nur erwihnte, um die ungegriindete Lehre 
des Aristoteles von der generatio equivoca alsbald auch auf sie anzuwenden.” (Gop- 
pert, Systema Filicum Fossilium, p. 4.) 

52“ Cette science eut beaucoup plus de peine a se développer que les autres sciences 
naturelles, telles que la physique et la chimie, car elle rencontra tout d’abord une op- 
position religieuse qui en entrava longtemps les progrés. L’orthodoxie biblique craig- 
nant que la science ne s’écartat trop des traditions de la Gendse, interdisait aux savants 
Vétude indépendante des fossiles, dans lesqueles elle ne voyait que les débris des étres 
anciens détruits par le déluge de Noé.” (Schimper, Traité de paléontologie végétale 
Tome I, p. 6.)° ; 


It is only in so far as they relate to fossil plants that these general 
considerations can be entered into here, although so closely are all 
branches of paleontology blended in those early and, as it were, undif- 
ferentiated stages of their historical development that too strict a con- 
struction of this rule might exclude matter which has an important 
bearing upon paleobotany. The special science, however, must be 
regarded as very much younger than the general one. Indeed, while 
there is no doubt that the ancients were familiar with several kinds of 
animal fossils, particularly shells and corals, it is generally believed 
that they were wholly unacquainted with any form of vegetable petri- 
faction.» This complete ignorance seems to have continued through- 
out the middle ages down to the thirteenth century. 

It is certainly surprising that so common an object as a piece of pet- 
rified wood should never have been observed by intelligent people in- 
habiting limestone regions like those of Greece and Italy, and it is hard 
to believe that this was really the case. It is more reasonable to suppose 
that such things were sometimes seen and wondered at by rustics, but 
that for some reason they escaped being recorded; or they may have 
been recorded in some work that has failed to come down to us, like the 
two lost books of Theophrastus. 

53 “« Drempreintes végétales ou de débris végétaux pétrifiés, nulle mention chez les 
anciens.” (Schimper, loc. cit., p.1. See also Brongniart, Histoire des végétaux fos- 
siles, Tome I, p. 1; Sprengel, Commentatio de Psarolithis, p. 7; Géppert, Syst. Fil. 
Foss., p. 8.) 

The following are among the passages most commonly quoted in support of the 
opposite view : 

“Palmati [lapides] circa Mundam in Hispania, ubi Casar dictator Pompeium vicit, 
quoties fregeris.” (Tothe word “palmati” is attached the following foot-note: ‘ Qui 
palme intus fracti referant.”) (Plinius, Nat. Hist., XXXVI, 29. Delphin Classics, 
111, Pliny, 9, p. 4749.) 

“In Ciconum flumine, et in Piceno lacu Velino lignum deiectum, lapideo cortice 
obducitur, et in Surio Colchidis flumine, adeo ut lapidem plerumque durans adhuc 
integat cortex. Similiter in Silaro, ultra Surrentum, non virgulta modo immersa, 
verum et folia lapidescunt, alias salubri potu ejus aque. In exitu paludis Reatinz 
saxum crescit.” (Loe. cit., II, 106.) 

“‘Syringitis -stipule, internodio similis, perpetua fistula cavatur.” (Loe. cit., 
XXXVII, 67.) : 

“Qui navigavere in Indos Alexandri milites frondem marinarum arborum tradi- 
dere in aqua viridem fuisse, exemptam sole protinus in salem arescentem. Juncos 
[truncos] quoque lapideos perquam similes veris per littora,” ete. (Theophrastus, 
loc. cit., XIII, 51.) : 7 : 

“‘Quarti generis elatiten vocari quamdiu crudus sit: coctum vero militen, utilem 
ambustis, ad omnia utiliorem rubrica.” (Loe. cit., XXXVI, 38.) 

‘‘ Dryites e trancis arborum: hee et ligni modo ardet.” (Loe. cit., XX XVII, 73.) 

Consult also, Theophrastus, Hepz Azfcv, Sect. XXIX; Strabo, Geographica, Lib. 
XVI; and Pausanias, Greciz Descriptio, Lib. I, cap. 43. 

All these passages have, however, been carefully studied, and the conclusion reached 
that they refer only to stones resembling trunks, fruits, etc., to madrepores, to in- 
crustations, or other mineral substances, and not in any case to real petrifactions. 


Brongniart has offered an apology for the ancients, on the ground 
' that no coal mines occur in Greece or Rome, and that Spain, Northern 
Africa, and Western Asia, with which alone they were acquainted, are 
all equally wanting in that formation; and he very truly remarks that 
the knowledge of fossil plants really began simultaneously with the use 
of coal, as the destruction of the forests of Western and Northern Eu- 
rope forced the growing population to discover some substitute for 
wood as fuel. This is quite true so far as coal plants are concerned, 
and somewhat so for all those fossils which are only exposed by min- 
ing, yet when we consider the extensive public works that were carried 
on by the Romans, in connection with the large number of rich beds of 
fossil plants now known in Italy, Dalmatia, Euboea, and with the pet- 
rified forests of northern Egypt and other countries of the Roman Em. 
pire, some other explanation is certainly needed to account for the 
silence of ancient literature upon the subject. This is to be found in 
the highly artificial character of their civilization, and the little interest 
taken in or attention paid to the phenomena of nature around them. 
This state of society can be easily imagined by eliminating from our 
own society the very minute fraction of the citizens of any modern coun- 
try who ever observe or reflect upon natural objects or phenomena. In 
any Jarge city these can almost be counted upon the fingers, and this 
could then be done for the whole Roman Empire, while during the suc- 
ceeding ages even these few were wanting, and the flicker that Pliny 
kindled upon the dying embers of Grecian learning was allowed to go 
entirely out. 

It was long supposed that Agricola® was the first to make unequiv- 
ocal mention of petrified wood, but a passage has been found in Al- 
bertus Magnus, Which leaves no doubt that his attention had been 
definitely drawn to this subject, and which carries it back to the thirteenth 
century. This passage, however, seems to have attracted no attention, 
and it was only after Agricola had twice*” expressed his views on the 
subject that other writers took it up. Matthiolus in his letter to Bauhin 
(1564), and Gesner®™ (1565), described specimens .which came into their 
possession. A long discussion followed as to the true nature of these 
petrifactions and all kinds of theories were put forward. Already for 

54Histuire des végétaux fossiles, Tome I, p. 1. 

*Georgius Bauer Agricola. De natura fossilium, 1558, Lib. VII, pp. 324, 328. 

56“ Similiter autem ligna jacentia in quibusdam aquis et maribus convertunt in 
lapides et retinent figuram lignoruam. Et aliquando nate plants in aquis et mari- 
bus illis ita sunt vicine lapidum naturis quod ad modicum exiccate in aére, lapi- 
dum formam assumunt,” etc. (Beati Alberti Magni De mineralibus. Tractatus L 
Caput VII. Opera, Tom. II, p. 216, Lugduni, 1651.) 

57“ De ortu et causis subterraneorum. Lib. III. In De re metallica, Basilesw, 1657, 
p. 507. Arbores * * * lapidescunt * * * tum gic in saxa commutate, ut 
suus cujuscunque; truncus et rami mox sub aspectum veniant: eortex a ligno non 
difficiliter internoscantur.” 

5Conrad Gesner: De rerum fossilium, lapidum, et gemmarum maxime figuris et 
similitudinibus. Tiguri, 1565. (See cap. ix, fol. 125, f. 1.) 


centuries had the discussion of petrifactions in general been raging and 
the discovery of petrified wood only added new complications to an old 
controversy. Enlarging upon Aristotle’s doctrine of spontaneous gen- 
eration, the scholastic writers had affirmed that it was as possible for 
stones of any required form to produce themselves as for living animals 
and plants. Avicenna in the tenth century had proposed his vis lapi- 
difica, and Albertus Magnus in the thirteenth his virtus formativa. 
Bauhin® predicated a spirit of the Universe, or Archeus, while Liba- 
vius ® held that fossils sprang, like living things, from a true germ or 
seed. Balthasar Klein obtained a specimen, one side of which was 
stone, the other coal, and this excited intense curiosity. He sent the 
specimen to Matthiolus, who studied it and came to the conclusion® 
that coal was the third or final step in the process of transmutation, 
and that just as wood turned into stone so stone in turn was transformed 
into coal. Klein’s own views were much more rational. The discovery 
in the mines of Joachimsthal of a petrified trunk with the bark on 
added to the interest already aroused on this subject and kept alive the 

Thus far only petrified wood had been observed or considered, and 
although Johannes Kentmann,” in 1565, had given an account of some 
ieaf impressions formed by incrustations of tufa, no mention of the re- 
mains of the foliar organs of plants in any true rock formation seems to 
have been made until 1664, when Johann Daniel Major published at Jena 
his “ Lithologia curiosa, sive de animalibus et plantis in lapides versis.” 
This work was so little known that whatever its merits it attracted no 
notice, and the subject of fossil plants in the sense now commonly under- 
stood remained practically untouched until the close of the seventeenth 

In 1699 appeared at London Lhwyd’s “ Lithophylacii britannici Ich- 
nographia,” “in which were not only described but figured with suf- 
ficient fidelity for identification a number of ferus from the coal meas- 
ures of England. <A period of great activity in this department of hu- 
man observation, we can scarcely say science, followed the appearance 
of this work, but before attempting to follow the development from 
this point we may pause a moment to consider the history and progress 
of ideas which in all ages so largely formed the spur to observation and 

With the discovery of fossilized leaves and fronds by Major and 
Lhwyd all the departments of paleontology had been opened to dis. 
cussion, and in those early days discussion was the primary consid- 

59 De fontibus et balneis Bollensis. 

60 Hist. et invest. font. medic. ad Tubarin snub Rotembergo. P. III, Franc. ad Menum. 

61 Epistole ad Bauhin, III, pp. 141, 142, 1564. 

6 Nomenciatura rerum fossilium, etc. Tit. vi, Lapides. Tiguri, 1565, fol. 38. 

6 Eduardi Luidii Lithophylacii britannici ichnographia, sive lapidum aliorumque 
fossilium britannicorum singulari figura insignium * * * distributio classica. 
Londini et Lipsiw, 1699. 8°. (See Tab. 4 & 5, Figs. 184%, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 197; 
see, ‘also, two Annularias, Figs. 201 & 202, Tab. 5.) 


eration. The end was then, as now with modern science, the ascertain- 
ment of truth, but the lesson had not yet been learned that to this end 
the accumulation and investigation of facts is the first and principal 

The mystic views of Avicenna, Albertus, Bauhin, Matthiolus, and 
Libavius, already referred to, prevailed in varying forms throughout 
the seventeenth century. Sperling“ (1657) advocated a stone-making 
spirit, or aura seminalis, Kircher® (1665) propounded his theory of 
seminaria of corpuscula salina as the true principle of petrifaction, and 
as really constituting the vis lapidifica or spiritus architectonicus which 
controls the action of the succus petrificus, or petrifying juice, in which 
he was followed more or less closely by Lachmund® (1669), Plot (1677), 
Rhin® (1682), and Lhwyd® (1699), while others considered fossils as 
mere freaks of nature. Indeed, Camerarius”™ (1712) declared that in 
the beginning God had supplied these varied forms to the earth’s inte- 
rior the same as grass and herbage to its surface. This class of ideas, 
however, could with difficulty withstand the light of the accumulating 
facts after the commencement of the eighteenth century, and Lange’s”! 
attempt (1708) to demonstrate the germ theory proved one of the latest 
efforts of the kind. A modified Democritism, however, cropped out 
later, as seen in Dr. Arnold’s (1733) investigation of the origin and 
formation of fossils, in which he postulated the existence of infinitesi- 
mal particles which were brought together in the creation of the world 
to form the outline of all the creatures and objects upon and within the 
earth, a work which found some favor on the continent and was trans- 
lated into German in 1733.” 

The theory which was destined to supplant these vague, unreal spec- 
ulations and to prevail throughout the eighteenth century was what 
may be called the fiood theory, viz., the idea that all or nearly all fos- 
sils consist of the débris of the life of the globe prior to the occurrence 
of the Noachian deluge, having been tossed and washed about in that 
great disturbance and then left stranded on or near the surface in the 
places where they now occur after the waters had retreated. This view 
mInay seem to us a poor substitute even for the worthless dreams which 

John Sperling. Lithologia, quam sub preside viri, ete., examini submittit G. 
E. Wiegandus. Viteb., 1657. 

* Athanasius Kircherus, Mundus subterraneus, Tom. I, Lib. VIII, Sect. I, Cap. 
Ill; Sect. II, Cap. I. Amsterdam, 1665. 

6 Friederich Lachmund. Oryctographia Hildesheimensis. Hildesheim, 1669. 

“Robert Plot. Natural History of Oxfordshire, pp. 32, 33, 122, 124. Oxford, 1677. 

“Lucas Rhin. Dissertatio de ebore fossili. Altdorf, 1682. 

“?Edward Lhwyd. Loe. cit 

“Elias Camerarius. Dissertationes taurinenses physico-medice, Franef., 1712. 

"Carolus Nicolaus Langius. Alistoria lapidiam figuratorum Helvetiex, p. 165. 
Venetiis, 1708, 4°. 

Theodore Arnold. Eine Untersuchung des Ursprungs und der Formirung derer 
Fossilien. Leipzig, 1733. 8°. I know this paper only from «a mention of it by 
Schultze in his “ Kriuterabdriicke im Steinreiche,” 8. 10. 


had to make way for it, but when philosophically viewed it will be seen 
that it was really a decided advance upon those. This is clear when 
we remember that it involves the admission that the petrified forms 
represent true living forms that once inhabited the earth, which in so 
far is a scientific truth not embodied in any of the hypotheses thus far 
considered. He who reads the discussion of those times cannot fail to 
observe that it bears the stamp of all progressive controversy, in which 
a more realistic conception is confronting and overthrowing older ideal- 
istic ones. 

The first intimation that remains of the Flood might be looked for 
seems to have come from Martin Luther, who in his commentary on the 
book of Genesis said he had no doubt that surviving indications of the 
Deluge might be found in the form of wood hardened into stone around 
the mines and smelting mills. Alexander ab Alexandro in his ‘‘Gen- 
iales dies” (1522), also held this view, and was followed by Agricola 
(1546), Matthiolus (1564), Gesner (1565), and Imperatus™ (1599). But 
this explanation made little or no headway against the fanciful theories 
of the time, and it was not until nearly a century later that the flood- 
theory, revived perhaps by a new edition of the work of Alexander ab 
Alexandro,” began to be reasserted and to take firm root. Dr. John 
Woodward, of London, who was a great collector of fossils, published a 
work in 1695 in which he held that all the solid parts of the earth’s 
crust were loosened by the Flood and mingled promiscuously in its 
waters, and that at its close everything sank back to the surface ac- 
cording to its specific gravity, the remains of animals and plants as- 
suming the positions in the respective strata in which they are now found 
petrified. Lhwyd, also, in the work already cited (1699) and other writ- 
ings, gave countenance to this theory, which had thus acquired con- 
siderable respectability prior to the opening of the eighteenth century. 
But the greatest champion and expounder of thé diluvian hypothesis 
was still to come in the person of Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, a brief 
sketch of whose life and work has already been given. His great work” 
appeared in 1709, in which he severely attacks all other theories and 
brings forward a mass of evidence in favor of his own which has proved 
of the greatest value to the progress of substantial knowledge and 
especially to that of paleobotany. It is not by this really useful and 
for its time important and remarkable work that, we fear, the name of 

73°¢Und ich zweifele nicht, dass noch von der Siindfluth her ist, dass man an Oer- 
tern, da Bergwerck ist, oft Holtz findet, das schier zu Steinen gehirtet ist.” Martin 
Luther’s Griindliche und Erbauliche Auslegung des Ersten Buchs Mosis, Halle, 1739, 
Band I, col. 176. 

7 Ferrante Imperato. Dell’ historia naturale. Napoli, 1590. 

7% Alexander ab Alexandro. Genialium Dierum, librivi. Parisiis, 1539, Lib.v, Caput 
ix, fol. 120. 

% John Woodward. An essay towards a natural history of the earth and terrestrial 
bodies. London, 1695. (See pp. 74 et seq.) 

77 Johann Jacob Scheuchzer. Herbarium diluvianum. Tiguri, 1709. 

Missing Page 

Missing Page 


(1665), Merret ® (1667), Steno (1669), Wedel” (1672), Boccone ® (1674), 
Lister ® (1678), Leibnitz 1° (1693), Tenzel (1694), in the seventeenth ; 
Carl ! (1704), Rosinus ! (1719), Kundmann ™ (1737), Schultze ' (1755), 
Parsons 1 (1757), Blumenbach ! (1780), in the eighteenth century, and 
numerous others, recognized in one form or another the real character of 
the fossils they were dealing with, some comparing them with living ani- 
mals and plants, and some, especially in the later years, boldly combat- 
ing the vagaries and supernatural explanations of the dominant schools. 
Most of these writers investigated the specimens themselves and drew 
their conclusions fresh from them, and in not a few cases the amount 
of such material in their hands for investigation was considerable. 
During the seventeenth century these more rational utterances were 
of course without avail, but during the eighteenth they commenced to 
make themselves felt with increasing force. The diluvian hypothesis, 
as already remarked, was an advance toward the true conception, and 
the question now turned upon the manner in which these petrified re- 
mains of once living things could have been placed where they were 
found. Kundmann and Schulze were among the boldest, and Morand! 

‘Christopher Merret. Pinax rerum naturalium Britannicarum, continens vegeta- 
bilia, ammalia et fossilia in hac insula reperta inchoatus. London, 1666 & 1667. 

*§ Nicolaus Steno. De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis pro- 
dromus. Florentie, 1669. 

“G@. W. Wedel. De conchis saxatilibus. Ephemerid. Naturz Curiosorum, 1672. 
IIT, pp. 101-103, Pl. LXX. Lipsiz et Franef., 1681. 

*8Paul Boccone. Recherches et observations naturelles touchant le corail, etc., 
Amsterdam, 1674. 

® Martin Lister. Historie animalium tres Anglix tractatus quibus adjectus est 
quartus de lapidibus ad cochlearum quandam imagiuem figuratis. London, 1678. 
See the ‘‘Prefatio” to this fourth treatise, in which, while favoring a terrigenous 
origin, he admits that if real animals they have now ceased to be generated. P. 199. 

Idem. Synopsis methodica conchyliorum. 1685. 

Idem, A description of stones figured like plants, and by some observing men 
esteemed to be plants petrified. Phil. Trans, London, 1673, Vol. VIII, No. 100, pp 
6181-6191. PI. 1. 

0G. W. Leibnitz. Acta erudita. Lipsiew, 1693. P. 40. 

‘1 W, E. Tenzel. Epistola ad Magliabechum de sceleto elephantino Tonne puper 
effosse. Jena, 1694. 

1 Samuel Carl. Lapis Lydius philosophicus pyrotechnicus ad ossium fossilium 
docimasiam analytice demonstrandum adhibitus, ete. Franc. ad Menam, 1704. 

1 Michael Reinhold Rosinus. Tentaminis de lithozois ac lithophytis, olim marinis, 
jam vero subterraneis, prodromus, etc. Hamburg, 1719. 

iJ. C. Kundmann. Rariora natura et artis, oder Seltenheiten der Natur und 
Kunst des Kundmannscher Naturalienkabinets. Breslau u. Leipzig, 1737. I. Ab- 
schnitt, 14. Artickel. 

106 Ch. Fr. Schultze. Kurtze Betrachtung derer Kriuterabdrticke im Steinreiche. 
Dresden und Leipzig, 1755, S. 10. 

106 James Parsons. An account of some fossils, fruits, and other bodies found in 
the island of Shepey. Phil. Trans., 1757, Vol. 50, pt. 2, p. 396, 

7 Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. Géttingen 
1779-1780. 6. Aufl. 1799. Theil II, § 222, 225, (See especially pp. 688-708, ed. 1799.) 

* J. F.C, Morand. Die Kunst auf Steinkohlen zu bauen. Leipzig u. Kinigs- 
berg, 1771, 4°. (Translated from the French.) 


(1771), Bauder ' (1772), and Suckow “ (1782), wrote treatises in the 
true scientific spirit. But to Blumenbach is generally ascribed the 
credit of having fairly broken the spell and prepared the way for a 
science of paleontology. Not only in his “Handbuch” already men- 
tioned, but also throughout his later “ Beitrige” !" which began in 1790, 
and his other works, he taught with authority that the beings to whose 
former existence these fossil forms were due were not only antediluvian 
but preadamitic, and that moreover there had been a series of faunas 
and floras inhabiting the earth before the age of man. 

The revolution, however, was not instantaneous nor abrupt. It had 
been preparing for many years and could not have been much longer 
postponed. To understand the nature of this preparation it will be 
necessary to consider a few of the questions that came up for discus- 
sion and solution during the eighteenth century, and in attempting to 
do this we must now confine ourselves exclusively to those presented 
by the different forms of fossil vegetation. Without denying the su- 
perior importance of the evidence from animal remains, it may still be 
possible to vindicate the truth of the rather paradoxical statement of 
Brongniart that the vegetable kingdom should perhaps claim the honor 
of having caused the ridiculous ideas which attributed these remains 
of the ancient world to freaks of nature and plastic forces to be aban- 
doned. 1? 

Among these questions the two that seemed to dwarf all others were, 
first, Are these the remains of the same kind of plants that are now 
found growing upon the earth? and, second, When did the originals live 
that have been preserved in this remarkable manner by turning into 
stone ? 

When we consider what is now known about the geological strata of 
the earth’s crust we can scarcely realize that but two generations ago 
comparatively nothing was known on this subject. Geology was not 
yet born. The investigators of the last century were really not dis- 
cussing the geologic age of fossil remains. The assumption was uni- 
versal that these were plants that grew somewhere in the world only a 
few thousand years ago at most, plants such as either grew then in the 
countries where their remains were found or in other countries from 
which they had been brought by one agency or another, generally that 
of the Flood, or else, as some finally conceived, had been destroyed by 
these agencies, so as to have no exact living representatives. The 
writers of that period were therefore more or less divided among these 
three theories which we may respectively call (1) the indigenous theory, 

109 F, Fr, Bauder. Nachrict von den seit einigen Jahren zu Altdorf von ihm ent- 
deckten versteinerten Kérpern. Jena, 1772. 

110 Georg Adolph Suckow. Beschreibung einiger merkwtirdigen Abdriickevon der 
Art der sogenanten Calamiten. Hist. et comment. Acad. elector. Theodoro-Palatina, 
Tom. V, Physicum Monheimii, 1784, p. 355. 

11 Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte. 1790-1811. 

12 Histoire des végétaux fossiles, Tome I,p. 2. 


(2) the exotic theory, and (3) the extermination theory. The most of 
them, however, admitted two or more of these explanations to account 
for different facts which could not be brought under a single one. 

Scheuchzer, the great apostle of the Flood theory, considered the fos- 
sils as ordinary plants still to be found, and he gave them names taken 
from the standard botanical works, with all of which he was familiar, 
as well as with the flora of Switzerland, the Alps, and Europe in gen- 
eral. In the “editio novissima” of his ‘Herbarium diluvianum,” 1723, 
he attempted in an appendix to arrange them all according to the sys- 
tem of Tournefort. Among the genera which he confidently puts down 
are found Gallium (= Galium), Fragaria, Fumaria, Osmunda, Saxifraga, 
Sorbus, Trifolium, Vitis, etc., and he occasionally ventures to give the 
species, as Populus nigra. Volkmann, in his “Silesia subterranea” 
(1720), is not less certain that he sees in one impression the myrrh of 
the Scriptures, and in another the common Hippuris, or mare’s-tail. 
Lange" (1742) and Moering"* (1748) were satisfied with the faintest 
resemblances to living plants, while Lehmann! (1756) labored hard to 
prove that the impressions of Annularia sphenophylloides, which occur 
at different depths in the coal mines near Ihlefeld, Hohenstein, were 
flowers of Aster montanus (A. Amellus or A. Sibiricus) caught in full 
bloom and petrified in situ. Many others?!® preceded Walch, who was 
himself unable to free himself from the popular conceptions. He com- 
pared his Lithophytes with indigenous plants, from which he also de- 
rived certain supposed fossil flowers. 

The exotic theory, though equally untrue with the indigenous theory, 
marked a decided advance, since it was the outcome of careful study, 
and a supposed escape from some of the objections to the other mode 
of explanation. Very the century certain authors had been 
led by curiosity or some other motive to compare the finest of these im- 
pressions with specimens of living plants, then already well represented 
in European herbariums, from many distant countries. The earliest case 
of this kind on record is that of Leibnitz, who in 1706 furnished a note !7 
on the oecurrence of impressions of supposed Indian plants in Germany, 
@ conclusion which he arrived at from a comparison of fossils with liv- 
ing species from India, and believed them to agree. Twelve years 

Nicolaus Langius. Deschisto ejus indole atque genesi meditationes cum descrip- 
tione duorum vegetabilium rariorum, ete. Acta Acad. nat. cur., Tom. VI. App., p. 
133, tab. IT. 

Paul Gerard Moering. Phytolithus zee Linni in schisto nigro. Acta Acad. 
nat. cur., Tom, VIII, p. 448, 

néJ.G. Lehmann. Dissertation sur les fleurs de ]’Aster montanus, ou pyrénaique 
précoce a fleurs bleues et & feuilles de saule, empreintes sur l’ardoise. Hist. de Tacad. 
des sci. et de belles lettres de Berlin, 1756, pp. 127-144. 

u6C. F, Schultze. Die bei Zwickau gefundenen Kriuterabdriicke. Neue gesell- 
echaftl. Krziblungen, 1758. Theil I, pp. 42-48. 

P. F. Davila, Catalogue systématique et raisonné des curiosités de la nature et de 
Yart. Paris, 1767. See Tome TIL, pp. 237-254, Pl. VI, VII, VILL. 

47 Histoire des sciences, Paris, 1706, pp. 9-11. 


later Antoine de Jussieu published his celebrated memoir upon the 
coal plants of Saint Chaumont, in which he discussed the differences 
between them and European ferns and their resemblance to those of 
the tropics. 

The idea of the tropical facies of fossil plants was thenceforward fre- 
quently put forth, as by Lesser" (1735), Capeller ” (1740), Sauvages 
(1743), ete. Parsons!” (1757) declared that some of the petrified fruits 
found on the Island of Sheppey were “ absolutely exotics,” and Dulac” 
(1765) discovered in the coal mines of Saint Etienne, now so carefully 
explored by Grand’ Eury, impressions which he likened to American 
ferns. Walch leaned toward the exotic theory, and declared that so 
imperfect were the remains that their true identity could not be made 
out, and that the tendency had been too much to imagine indigenous 
species to exist where they were in reality foreign ones. He pointed 
out the fact that the fossil plants of England, France, and Germany 
were substantially the same, which is not the case to any such extent 
with the living floras, and even where no similarity with living plants 
could be traced he had no better explanation than that they must be- 
long to unknown exotic species. 

As intermediate between the exotic theory, or that of transportation 
by the Flood, and the extermination theory, or that of destruction by 
the Flood, and as, to some extent, an initial stage of the latter, there 
was called in a degeneration theory, which Volkmann™ sets forth as 
clearly as it was probably ever conceived by any of the contemporary 
writers, which certainly is not saying a great deal. According to this 
theory the antediluvian vegetation was of a far higher order than that 
of postdiluvian origin, and contained none of the thorns, thistles, and 
other scourges with which we are familiar. It also contained many 
useful and wholesome fruit-bearing trees, of which our modern forests 
are the degenerate representatives. Ideas like these were frequently 
expressed, and even Buffon entertained some notion of a state of faunal 
and floral degeneration. 

8 Examen des causes des impressions des plantes marquées sur certaines pierres 
des environs de Saint Chaumont. Mém. de l’acad. royale des sciences. Paris, 1718, 
p. 287. Itisremarkable that both Brongniart (Hist. des vég. foss., Tome I, p. 3) and 
Schimper (Traité de pal. vég., Tome I, p. 4) should have committed the error of credit- 
ing this paper to Bernard instead of Antoine de Jussieu. The former would have been 
only nineteen years of age; but Brongniart makes the further mistake of assigning 
the date as 1708 (loc. cit., foot-note 1), which would have made him only nine years 
old. See also a second memoir, loc. cit., 1721. 

19 Friedrich Christ. Lesser. Lithotheologie, oder noturhistorische und geistliche 
Betrachtung der Steine. Hamburg, 1735, p. 642. 

120 Maurus Antonius Capeller. Sciagraphia lithologica. Gedani, 1740, p. 6. 

121 T/Abbé de Sauvages. Sur différentes pétrifications,etc. Mém. de l’acad. roy. 
des sciences. 1743, p. 415. 

122 James Parsons. Philosophical Transactions. 1757, Vol. L, p. 397. 

123 Alleon Dulac. Mémoire pour servir 4 histoire naturelle des provinces de Lyon- 
nois, Forez, et Beaujolois. Lyon, 1765. Tome II. 

124 Silesia subterranea, p. 92. 


The conception of a gradual degeneration would be logically followed 
with that of complete extinction, but, so far as we know, the latter 
view found expression earlier than the former. Leibnitz, in the memoir 
already cited (1706), speaks of the proofs of great physical changes tak- 
ing place on the surface of the earth. Both Scheuchzer and Mylius 
admitted that many kinds of living creatures may have been utterly 
exterminated by the Flood. Jussieu proposed extinction as an alterna- 
tive explanation. Rosinus! (1719) stated that among fossil Encrinites 
and Belemnites there were some whose originals were unknown. Volk- 
mann and the other theological expounders believed in diluvian exter- 
mination, and thus explained the facts known to them that fossil trunks 
are often found on barren islands where no trees ever grew.” Walch 
admitted very little in this fertile direction, although he regarded the 
Calamite as the remains of great reeds which had no known living rep- 
resentatives. Suckow, however, in the memoir already referred to, 
where he was the first to recognize the affinity of the Calamite with 
Equisetum, decided, after careful comparison with E. gigantewm and 
other large living species, that they probably belonged to extinct 

The idea that the fossil remains might represent extinct species of 
forms once indigenous to Europe now began to take shape and to work 
a profound revolution in prevailing theories. The question then, re- 
ferred to a few pages back, as to the time when the originals must have 
been living, became oue of paramount importance and led to the investi- 
gation of the stratified rocks. This was the origin of true paleontolog- 
ical research. But it could searcely have been begun earlier. Strati- 
graphical geology was also at the same moment in the act of being born. 
Werner had founded his Neptunian theory, and Hutton his Plutonian, 
while William Smith was teaching how to determine the age of rocks 
by the fossils they contain. 

The puerile speculations about the nature of fossils which we have 
been considering can be better excused when we remember that nothing 
whatever was known of the earth. So long as it was supposed to be 
only a few thoasand years old, and as the only disturbance of which 
men had ever heard was that of the Mosaic deluge, we may well 
doubt whether the most astute of our present geologists would have 
conceived any better explanations. In this respect the Ancients had 
the advantage. Even Pythagoras is said to have taught that the land 
was once under the sea. Xenophanes and Herodotus both expressed 
this same idea, and Aristotle himself is known to have entertained 
something like an adequate conception of time limits.27 Tertullian 
(supra, p. 386, note 49) uttered the last faint echo of this thought, 
which thenceforward seems to have slumbered until the middle of 

1% Supra, p. 394, note 103. 
1%6'Volkmann. Silesia subterranea, p. 93. 
27 Meteorologicorum, Lib. I, Cap. XIV, 31; Lib. II. 


the fifteenth century,.when Leonardo da Vinci revived it, attacked 
the current scholastic doctrines, and maintained that the fossils which 
had been the subject of so much interest in Italy had been living 
creatures and had once lived in the sea. A century later Sarayna, 
as we have seen, asserted the organic origin of the Veronese petri- 
factions, and Fracastorius explained the fossils of the Kircherian, 
Moscardan, and Calceolarian Museums by assuming that the moun- 
tains containing them had stood in the water during the time the 
animals lived, and that these had left their remains on the retreat 
of the waters. These and all similar voices were, however, drowned 
amid the angry and senseless discussions of the time. Nicholas Steno, 
towards the end of the seventeenth century, in a work to which atten- 
tion has already been called (supra, p. 394, note 96), recognized the differ- 
ent ages of stratified rocks, and asserted that the oldest rocks contained 
no fossils. In the posthumous “ Protogea” ”* of Leibnitz, which must 
have been written very early in the eighteenth century, a cosmogony is 
elaborated which recognizes something like the true process of sedi- 
mentation, but is vitiated entirely by an attempt to harmonize it with 
the literal six days cosmogony of Moses. Lehmann (1756), whose errors, 
so far as his conclusions were concerned, we have already mentioned, 
nevertheless performed a truly pioneer work both for geology and for 
paleobotany in correctly indicating the relative depth, position, and re- 
lations of the different strata with their characteristic vegetable remains 
in the coal region at Ihlefeld. These and a few other like treatises 
prepared the way for Blumenbach and the sound views which began to 
prevail at the close of the eighteenth century. The inadequacy of the 
Flood theory to explain the facts and the conviction that there must 
have been a series of antecedent revolutions in the floras and faunas of 
the globe began to inspire research, and promised the fruitful results 
which, in fact, so soon and so richly followed. 


Having thus rapidly passed in review the long crepuscular period of 
speculation, conjecture, and groping research which was necessary to 
precede and prepare for the true advent of science—a period through- 
out most of which no real science of paleontology could be said to exist, 
or, if having aquasi-existence, its zoologic and phytologic branches were 
as yet for the most part undifferentiated—the scientific period, which, so 
far at least as plants are concerned, literally began with the beginning 
of the presentcentury, next claims attention. In the biological sketches 
which preceded this historical one the chronologic arrangement was 
adopted, and in this, therefore, was necessarily embraced much of the 
true history of the science, but, as there stated, this form of treatment 

18G, W. Leibnitz. Protogexa, sive de prima facie telluris et antiquissime historie 
vestigiis in ipsis nature monumentis dissertatio ; ex schedis manuscriptis viri illustris. 
in lucem editaa C. Scheidio. Gottinge,1749. § XLV treats of fossil trees and wood ; 
§ XLVI of peat, and § XLVII of the Luneburg fossil trees. 


necessarily leaves out many of the important facts in the history of the 
subject. It also fails to connect the principal points into an unbroken 
series and to correlate events and discoveries into a systematic whole. 
The chiefly chronologic treatment which will now be presented, while 
still lacking in philosophic method and otherwise defective, will aim to 
supply most of the omissions referred to, and will perhaps be more use- 
ful than any other form of treatment which could well be made within 
the limited space which can be devoted to it. 

The new epoch was auspiciously ushered in on the first year of the 
century by the memoir, already once referred to (supra p. 371), of the 
Baron von Schlotheim in Hoff’s Magazine, in which he applied the 
same reasoning to plants that Blumenbach had done to animals. 

Leopold von Buch” (1802) inaugurated the remarkable discussion as 
to whether the coal plants actually grew on the spot where they are 
found in the carbonized or silicified state, which was continued by Steff- 
ens,” Leonhard,"! Noeggerath,’” Sternberg, Brongniart, and Lindley 
and Hutton,!* but is by no means settled, and still goes on in France, 
England, and the United States. Two papers, by M. Faujas de Saint 
Fond, breathing the true scientific spirit of research appeared at about 
the same time and attracted much interest. 

In 1804 appeared Von Schlotheim’s epoch-making work, “ Flora der 
Vorwelt,” as it is now universally quoted, although the author himself 
merely entitled it a description of remarkable plant impressions and 
petrifactions, a contribution to the flora of the former (or primeval) 
world. Tous this seems modest enough, but in view of the history of 
paleontology which we have been considering, wemay readily see that this 
second part of the title was a bold declaration, and accordingly we find 
him defending it in his introduction by these words: “ The petrifactions 
which so early engaged the attention of investigators, and which, with- 
out doubt, afforded one of the first incentives to the founding of mineral 
collections and to the earnest study of mineralogy and geology, have, 
as is well known, since Walch began to arrange them systematically, 
been for a long time, as well in as outside of Germany, almost wholly 

'29 Leopold von Buch. Geognostische Beobachtungen auf Reisen durch Deutschland 
und Italien. Band I, Berlin, 1802. 5S. 92. 

40 Heinrich Steffens. Geognostisch-geologische Aufsitze. Hamburg, 1810. 8. 267. 

1K, C. Von Leonhard. Bedentung und Stand der Mineralogie. Frankfort, 1816. 
8. 70, 72. 

132 Jacob Noegyerath. Ueber aufrect im Gebirgsgestein eingeschlossene fossile Baum- 
stimme und andere Vegetabilien. Historisches und Beobachtung. Bonn, 1819-21. 

133 Fossil Flora of Great Britain, Vol. II, pp. xvii, xx, xxii. ; 

'34 Barthélemy Faujas de Saint Fond. Description des mines de Turffa des environs 
de Bruhl et de Liblar, connues sous la dénomination impropre de mines de terre d’om- 
bre, ou terre brune de Cologne. Annales du Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Tome I, 
pp. 445-460, avec 2 planches. Paris, 1802, (See Pl. XXIX.) 

Idem, Notice sur desplantes fossiles de diverses espdces qu’ on trouve dans les couches 
fossiles d’un schiste marneux, recouvert par des laves, dans les environs de Roche- 

sauve, département de l’Ardéche. (Loc. cit. Tome II, 1803, pp. 339-344, Pl. LYI et 


neglected. They were content to regard them as incontestable proofs 
of the Deluge, and closed all further investigation until they were at 
last compelled to explain their occurrence through other great natural 
operations which had probably been going on earlier and more univer- 
sally than the flood described in the Bible, and influencing the forma- 
tion of the upper strata of the earth’s crust; and more recent observa- 
tions and investigations have even led us to the very probable supposi- 
tion that they may be the remains of an earlier so-called pre-adamitic crea- 
tion, the originals of which are now no longer to be found. * * * In 
the continued investigation of this subject this opinion, with certain 
restrictions, has in fact gained a high degree of probability with the 
author of the present work, so that he ventures to announce his treatise 
as a contribution to the flora of the ancient world ( Vorwelt).” 

Since its introduction by Schlotheim this expression, ‘“ Flora der Vor- 
welt,” has been applied to nearly all the German works on fossil plants, 
and “ Beitriige zur Flora der Vorwelt” still continue to appear. Only 
one volume of this work appeared at this time, with fourteen plates; the 
completion, owing to political disturbances which so often interrupt the 
quiet march of science, was deferred until the year 1820, when the re- 
maining plates were published with the first and with those relating to 
animal remains as an atlas to his “ Petrefaktenkunde.” !% 

Schlotheim worked conscientiously, drew his figures clearly and 
weil, and sought diligently in all the European herbaria for forms with 
which his fossil plants could be compared. He seriously doubted the 
identity of the plant that had always been regarded as the common 
Hippuris vulgaris, and concludes that if any of the species he has figured 
are still living they must belong to tropical countries.. 

An important English work, one volume of which is devoted to 
vegetable remains, and bears date 1804, or the same as Schlotheim’s 
‘‘ Flora der Vorwelt,” has for its title “Organic remains of a former 
world,” the last two words of which are a fair translation of the Ger- 
man Vorwelt. Dr. Parkinson was a very learned man, and shows that 
he was familiar with the continental literature of his subject, but he 
nowhere refers to Schlotheim’s work, and may safely be assumed to 
have been unacquainted with it.’ The work is written in an erudite 
manner, and is fall of historical interest, but as a contribution to science 
itis far inferior to that of Schlotheim. The figures, though better than 
most of those of the time, are less clear than the German author’s, even 
where true leaf-prints and fronds are figured. But they mostly depict 
specimens of petrified wood and problematical fruits. Parkinson did 

135 See the ‘‘ Petrefaktenkunde,” p. 424. 

136 James Parkinson. Organic remains of a Former World. An examination of 
the mineralized remains of the vegetables and animals of the antediluvian world ; 
generally termed extraneous fossils, Vol. I, containing the Vegetable Kingdom. 
London, 1804. 7 

137 A remark made by M. Schimper (Traité de pal. vég., Tome I, p. 8) might lead to 
the supposition that this work had been written many years later. 

GEOL 84 26 


not regard it possible to identify the plants. For this work he called 
to his aid Dr. James Edward Smith, president of the Linnean Society, 
an accomplished botanist, and together they faithfully compared all the 
specimens they had. The result was that while a greater or less simi- 
larity was detected between different ferns and the living genera Pteris, 
Dicksonia, Osmunda, Polypodium, and Adiantum, Dr. Smith was unwill- 
ing to say that they actually represented these genera, and he “ conject- 
ured that they were all foreign, and productions of a warm climate.” 

In the conclusions which he draws from the facts stated in the first 
volume of his work, Dr. Parkinson clearly shows that he is still heavily 
shackled by the current fallacies relating to the subject he has treated. 
The Deluge is still a potent influence aud the “Former World” is not 
the modern geologist’s Paleozvic, nor even the “ Vorwelt ” of Schlotheim. 

Great activity in this branch of science followed the appearance of 
these works. As already shown (supra, p. 371), it was in 1804 that 
Count Sternberg began to write, though partly instigated by the papers 
of Faujas de Saint Fond, who still continued his investigations.’ 
Voigt! (1807) discussed the so-called Psarolithes of the Museum Len- 
zianum at Jena, and pronounced them fossil polyps, but retracted this 
decision the next year, and admitted their vegetable character. Wep- 
pen!” (1808) also mentions a number of specimens of petrified wood 
from the East Indies, Siberia, and various parts of Europe. This 
question was further treated by Steffens,’ Oken in his ‘Lehrbuch 
der Naturgeschichte,”™ Hoff,” and Schlotheim. Martin’s “ Petrificata 
Derbiensia” | is regarded as a forerunner of future work in Great Britain 
on the structure of trunks and on the study of the vegetable remains 
of the coal-measures. Schlotheim’s “‘ Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der 
Versteinerungen in geognostischer Hinsicht”! (1813) was an appeal 
for greater thoroughness in paleontological research. In 1814 Kieser™® 
first pointed out the characteristic structure of coniferous wood which 

188 Bemerkungen tiber die von Faujas de St. Fond beschriebenen fossilen Pflanzen. 
Botanische Zeitung. No. 4. 29. February, 1804, pp. 48-52. 

9 Faujas de Saint Fond. Memoirs in the “Annales du muséum @histoire naturelle”, 
Tome VIII, 1806, p. 220; Tome XI, 1808, p. 144; and in the “ Mémoires,” Tome II, 
1815, p.444 ; Tome V, 1819, p. 162. 

“9 Johann Karl Wilhelm Voigt. Kurze minerogische Bemerkungen. Leonhard’s 
Taschenbuch fiir Mineralogie. Erster Jahrgang, pp. 120-124. 

“1 Tdem. Loc cit. LGweiter Jahrgang, pp. 385-386. 

‘2 J, A. Weppen. Nachricht von einigen besonders merk wiirdigen Versteinerungen 
und Fossilien seines Kabinets. Leonhard’s Taschenbuch, Band II, p. 178. 

“8 Heinrich Steffens. Handbuch der O1yktognosie, Halle. 1811, Band I, p. 172-186. 

4 Th. I, p. 300, 1812. 

“6K. E. A. von Hoff. Beschreibung des Trummergebirgs und des iltern Fl6tzge- 
birgs, welche den Thiiringen Wald umgeben. Leonh. Taschenb., Band VIII, 1814, 
p. 350. 

“6 William Martin. Petrificata Derbiensia; or, Figures and descriptions of Petri- 
factions collected in Derbyshire. 4to, Wigan, 1809. 

“7 Leonhard’s Taschenbuch, Band VII, 1813, p. 1. 

148 Dietrich Georg Kieser. Elemente der Phytonomie, oder Grundziige der Anato- 
mie der Pflanzen. Jena, 1815. Appendix. 


has had such an important bearing on the study of petrified woods. In 
1796 Hagen had published a memoir on the origin of amber, which 
was supplemented by Dr. John, of Cologne, in his large work™ on that 
substance, discussing it from almost every conceivable point of view. 
Relative to the kind of tree that is supposed to have produced the am- 
ber he says (p. 168) it is very probable that a species of the genus Pinus 
formerly grew in Prussia which, as is the case with many other plants, 
is now wholly extinct. 

Passing over some less important memoirs we come to that of the 
Rev. Henry Steinhauer “On Fossil Reliquia of Unknown Vegetables 
in the Coal Strata.”"! Few papers of this period are more often or 
approvingly quoted than this. Although presented to an American so- 
ciety by one of its members, then a resident of Bethlehem, Pa., it treats 
the subject in a thoroughly general way. The author had evidently 
spent the greater part of his lifein Great Britain, and was well ac- 
quainted with British localities and British fossils. In fact, no mention 
whatever is made of any American locality, and the paper would have 
been perfectly at home in any of the scientific journals of England. 
The remark, therefore, of M. Schimper’ to the effect that Steinhauer 
had laid the foundations of vegetable paleontology in America by a 
study of the vegetable impressions of the coal-measures of this country, 
seems not to be historically accurate. Probably the most important 
feature of this able paper is the attempt made in it to classify the veg- 
etable remains of the Carboniferous. No special mention has thus far 
been made of similar previous attempts by Scheuchzer, Walch, Scloth- 
eim, etc., because the more complete treatment of this important subject 
is reserved for a future place as an independent and connected study, 
and we will not anticipate this branch of our subject here. 

Omitting a number of works in which vegetable fossils are either ex- 
pressly treated, or least casually referred to, as by Ballenstedt and Krii- 
ger,? Raumer,"! Schweigger,! d’Aubuisson de Voisins,’* and Nilsson," 

149K, G. Hagen. De succini ortu. Ueber den Ursprung des Bernsteins. Riga, 1796 ; 
see, also, Gilbert’s Annalen, Band XIX, 1805, p. 181. 

150 J, F. John. Naturgeschichte des Succins, oder des sogenannten Bernsteins. 
Kéln, 1816. 

151 Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia, Vol. I, 1818, 
p. 265. 

182 Traité de Pal. Veg. Tome I, p. 16. 

183 J, G. F. Ballenstedt. Die Urwelt. 3. Aufl. Quedlinburg, 1819. 

Johan Gottlob Kriiger. Geschichte der Urwelt. Leipzig, 1820, Bd. II, pp. 95-254. 

Ballenstedt & Kriiger. Archiv ftir die Entdeckungin der Urwelt. 6 Bde. Qued- 
lingburg, 1819-1824. 

164 Carl von Raumer. Das Gebirge Niederschlesiens. .. geognostisch dargestellt. 
Berlin, 1819, p. 166 (Anmerkungen). ; 

196 A, F, Schweigger. Beobachtungen auf naturhistorischen Reisen. Berlin, 1819. 

156 D’Aubuisson de Voisins. Traité de Géognosie. 1819, Tome II, pp. 294, 298. 

87 Syeno Nilsson. Om Férsteningar och Aftryck af tropiska tridslag, Blad, orm- 
bunkar och rérvixter m. m. samt tridkol, funna i ett Sandstenslager i Skane. Kongl. 
Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, 1820, pp. 108-122, 278-293. 


which appeared in 1819 or 1820, the last named of which contains the ear- 
liest descriptions of the plant remains of the interesting locality of Hor, 
in South Sweden, afterward more carefully studied by Brongniart,!* 
we find in the year 1820 three treatises of prime importance: Rhode’s 
‘‘Pflanzenkunde der Vorwelt,”' Schlotheim’s ‘“ Petrefactenkunde,” 
(supra, p. 371), and Sternberg’s “Vlora der Vorwelt” (supra, p. 371). 
Rhode studied the coal plants of Silesia, and was the predecessor of 
Géppert in that line of work. He discovered the now well-known fact 
that thick stems often silicify within while carbonizing without, which 
he discussed as well as the questions treated by Schlotheim and his 
predecessors relative to the real nature of plant impressions. He fig- 
ured Lepidodendron, Sigillaria, and other coal plants, and his plates 
are still frequently quoted. Like Lehmann, he mistook certain verticil- 
late forms for flowers, but represented them none the less faithfully. 
His work was never finished, being interrupted by the premature death 
of the author. Sternberg treated the subject of vegetable remains 
both from the geognostic and the botanical points of view, and his work 
was undoubtedly the most advanced contribution that had been made 
up to this date. We have already referred to it in a general way, and 
as its chief interest centers upon the system of classification which he 
proposed we must defer the more detailed account of it until this sub- 
ject is reached. Less than an eighth of Schlotheim’s “ Petrefacten- 
kunde” is devoted to plants, but it is systematically arranged, and the 
families, genera, and species are named according to the binomial 
method of Linneus, giving the work a decidedly modern appearance. 
About the only other work referred to in it is his own “Flora der Vor- 
welt,” the plates of which are reproduced, and others added. He had 
evidently not met with the paper of Steinhauer, and appeared not to 
be aware of the labors of Sternberg. 

These works gave a new impetus to the science of fossil plants, and 
in the following year a number of papers appeared describing discov- 
eries in special localities in Germany, France, England,’ and 
America. In this year also appeared Adolphe Brongniart’s first and 
very important paper on the classification and naming of fossil plants, 

18 Annales des Science Naturelles. Tome lV, p. 200. Pl. XI, XII. Paris, 1825. 

9 J. G. Rhode. Beitrige zur Pilanzenkunde derVorwelt. Breslau, 1820. 

1008.8. von Nau. Pflanzenabdriicke und Versteinerungen aus dem Kohlenwerke 
von St. Ingbert im baierischen Rheinkreis verglichen mit lebenden Pflanzen aus 
sa Zonen. Denkschr. der kéngl. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Mtinchen, Band VII, 1821, 
S. 283. 

161 Alexandre Brongniart. Notice sur des végétaux fossiles traversant les couches 
du terrain houiller, Annales des Mines, Tome VI, 1821, pp. 359-370. 

7®' Thomas Allan, Description of a vegetable impression found in the quarry of 
Craigleith. Trans. Roy. Soc., Edinb., Vol. IX, 1823, p. 235. 

Patrick Brewster. Description of a fossil tree found at Niteshill, etc. Loe. cit., 
p. 103, Pl. IX. 

16 Ebenezer Granger. Notice of vegetable impressions on the rocks connected with 
the coal formation of Zanesville, Ohio, Am. Journ. Sci., 1% ser., Vol. III, 1821, p.5. 


which has beén quoted already (supra, p. 372), and will receive special 
attention farther on. 

Four important works appeared in 1822, viz., (1) a memoir by Adolphe 
Brongniart, contained in the “Description géologique des environs de 
Paris,” by Cuvier and Alex. Brongniart (also in Cuvier’s “Recherches 
sur les ossements fossiles,” Tome V, pp. 640-674, 6d. 1835), describing the 
fossil plants of the Paris basin; (2) Mantell’s Fossils of the South Downs, 
or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, in which the plant remains, 
though .meager, are mostly dicotyledonous, or fruits of Conifers, ete. 
(see Plates VIII and IX and pp. 157 and 262); (3) Martius, “De plantis 
nonnullis antediluvanis ope specierum inter tropicos viventium illus- 
trandis ;”! and (4) Schlotheim’s “Nachtrag zur Petrefactenkunde,” 
which, though chiefly devoted to animal fossils, contains an interesting 
chapter on fossil seaweeds. 

Brongniart took up the subject of fossil seaweeds, or fucoids, the fol- 
lowing year,!® but with the exception of two or three unimportant 
papers nothing else appeared in 1823, though research was none the 
less active. 

Much the same could be said for the year 1824, although the contri- 
butions of Buckland, Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche,!* and Dr. Man- 
tell? in England, Defrance!® in France, and Nilsson!” in Sweden 
added to the stock of knowledge in this department. Sternberg pub- 
lished an important memoir in Flora,™ and Martius began his great 
work on the palms,’” which has at least proved an aid to paleobotany, 
and to which Unger eventually supplied the fossil department. 

The year 1825 was characterized in England by an important illus- 
trated work by Edmund Tyrell Artis, entitled ‘‘Antediluvian Phytol- 
ogy,” which, notwithstanding Brongniart’s criticism,'” and the fact that 
most of his species have been obliged to give way, must ever remain 
one of the classics of paleobotany, though rather as a work of art than 
of science. The author discusses in a very rational manner the progress 
of ideas relative to geology, but shows the proximity of his time to the 
age of pure discussion by admitting that he had undertaken to prepare 
himself to write the work because “convinced of the importance of this 

164Denkschriften der kéniglich-baierischen batanischen Gesellschaft in Regensberg, 
Band II, 1822, p. 121, Pl. TI-X. 

165Mém. de la Soc. d’Hist. Nat., Paris, Tome I, pp. 301-321, Pl. xix-xxi. 

166 Trans. Geol. Soc. London, ser. ii, Vol. I, Part I, p. 210. 

167 Loc. cit., Pt. II, pp. 45, 162, Pl. VII, Figs. 2, 3. 

168 Loc. cit., Part II, p. 421. 

169 Jacques Louis Marin Defrance. Tableau des corps orgavisés fossiles, précédé des 
remarques sur les pétrifications. Paris, 1824. (See pp. 123, 124, 126.) 

17 Kong]. Vetenskaps-Academiens Handlingar, 1824, pp. 143-148, Pl. Il. Stock- 
holm, 1824. 

in Bd. VII, p. 689. 

12 QC, F, Martius. Genera et species palmarum quas in itinere per Brasiliam annis 
1817-1820. . . collegit. Monachii, 1824-1849. 

173 Hist. des vég. foss., Tome I, p. 6. 


study in affording the materials on which the geologist may found his 
theoretical speculations.” The plates are certainly beautiful and also 
faithful, and they have been largely drawn upon by later authors. A 
second edition of the work appeared in 183°. 

Three important papers by Brongniart appeared during the same year 
in the “ Annales des sciences naturelles” (Tome IV, pp. 23, 200, 417), 
one of which has just been referred to. Sir Alexander Crichton’s me- 
moir on the climate of the antediluvian world ‘“ attracted considerable 
attention and was copied into several of the scientific journals on the 

During 1826 few results were made known, and the only monograph 
of special note that appeared in 1827 was Jaeger’s ‘‘ Pflanzenversteiner- 
ungen,”!® which was a praiseworthy effort, and although the illustra- 
tions fall below the standard erected by Schlotheim and Artis, the 
geognostic treatment has been considered able, and the work is still 

The year 1828 is without question the most eventful one in the history 
of paleobotany, since it saw the issue of Brongniart’s “ Prodrome,” and 
the commencement of his ‘‘ Histoire des Végétaux fossiles” (supra, 
p. 372), which, taken together as they belong, form the solid basis upon 
which the science has since been erected. We will first consider the 
“Prodrome,” which merely forms an introduction to the other work, not 
asit is, butas it was, designed byitsauthortobe. The “ Histoire” stopped 
before the cryptogamic series had been finished, but in the “ Prodrome” 
he takes us through the phenogamic series also as he understood it. 
Brongniart’s fundamental conception was that fossil plants were not the 
less plants, and that so fast as they really became known they should be 
placed in their proper position in the vegetable series and made to form 
an integral part of the science of botany. In his classification, which 
will be given in another place, he therefore had due respect for the 
natural system as then understood, but he nevertheless felt that geog- 
nostic considerations must be taken into the account, and he saw, with 
almost prophetic accuracy, that in passing up through the geologic 
series higher and higher forms of vegetable life presented themselves. 
This seems simple envugh to us of this age, and might seem trite to the 
reader did we not find, several years later, some of the ablest author- 
ities both in botany and geology warmly contesting it, as we shall pres- 
ently see. Although unable to understand the complete continuity in 
the series, as modern evolution requires, and although affected by the 
Cuvierian idea of successive destructions and re-creations, still he insisted 
that each successive creation was superior to the one it had replaced, 
and that there had thus been, as it were, a steady progress from the 

4 Alexander Crichton. On the Climate of the Antediluvian World, etc. Annals of 
Philosophy, Vol. IX, pp. 97, 207. (See especially pp. 99-102.) 

1% Georg Friedrich Jaeger. Ueber die Pflanzenversteinerungen welche in dem Bau- 
sandstein von Stuttgart vorkommen. Stuttgart, 1827. (There is an abstract in 
French in the Ann. Sci. Nat., Paris, Tome XV, 1828, p. 92.) 


lowest to the highest forms of vegetation. He believed in the gradual 
reduction of temperature in the climate of the globe from the earliest 
times, and in the purification of the atmosphere from a former excess of 
carbonie acid, favorable only to the lower types which then prevailed. 
He divided the geologic series into four great periods, the first extending 
through the Carboniferous, the second embracing the grés bigarré, or 
Buntersandstein, only, the third seeming to include the rest of the Trias, 
the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous, and the fourth completing the series. 
The table which he gives on page 2% is calculated to show the develop- 
ment of the higher types of vegetation in successively higher strata, and 
may profitably be compared with the one having the same form, which 
will be found below (infra, pp. 440-441). Of this table he remarks that 
in the first period there exist hardly anything but Cryptogams, plants 
having a more simple structure than that of the following classes. In the 
second period the number of the two following classes becomes propor- 
tionately greater. During the third period it is the Gymnosperms which 
specially predominate. This class of plants may be considered interme- 
diate between the Cryptogams and the true Phenogams (Dicotyledons), 
which preponderate during the fourth period. The words italicized 
in the liberal translation here made are scarcely less than a prophecy, 
and one whose fulfillment is only now being tardily granted by system- 
atic botanists. In this tabular exhibit Brongniart enumerates 501 spe- 
cies of fossil plants known to him, 240 of which belonged to the first period 
(Paleozoic), 25 to the second,.72 to the third, and 164 to the fourth. He 
also states the number of living species at 50,350. A comparison of 
these figures with those of our own time, as given in the table below, 
will afford a sort ot measure by which to judge of the nineteenth cen- 
tury as an era of scientific discovery. 

Brongniart propounded a theory for the primordial distribution of 
land vegetation over the globe which is well worth a passing notice, and 
is not weakened by modern theories of post-glacial distribution, which 
might also be true. His theory, in brief, was that it began on small 
islands, the only land then existing ; that these islands became gradu- 
ally united and consolidated into continents upon which a different veg- 
etation, more varied, and more like the present vegetation could exist, 
and he says that it was not until after the formation of the chalk (4. ¢., the 
beginning of the Tertiary) that such a continental vegetation seemed 
to have appeared. He concludes from this that it was from this period 
that large areas of the earth’s surface began to be laid bare, and that 
true continents commenced to be formed. He regarded it as remarka- 
ble that great changes in both the flora and the fauna of the globe 
should have taken place almost simultaneously ; that the age of Cycads 
should correspond with that of reptiles and the age of Dicotyledons 
with that of mammals (p. 221). But unless fresh discoveries of this 
last-named class of animals shall be hereafter made in the middle Cre- 
taceous we must regard this second coincidence as now disproved. 



The great work of Brongniart, his “‘ Histoire des Végétaux fossiles,” 
proceeds with only a brief historical introduction to the systematic 
elaboration of the fossil plants in the order laid down inthe “ Prodrome.” 
One entire volume was finished and a second begun without complet- 
ing the Cryptogams. Seventy-two quarto pages are all that appear in 
the published editions of the second volume, which are devoted to a 
thorough discussion of the Lycopodiacese. The first volume is illus- 
trated by 166 plates, and 29 accompany the second volume. 

Besides these works by Brongniart, which bear date 1828, no less 
than five other memoirs from his pen relating to fossil plants appeared 
in that year.!% A number of other contributions to vegetable paleon- 
tology swell the extraordinarily rich literature of the subject in 1828, only 
one of which can be noticed inthis hasty sketch. Thisis Anton Sprengel’s 
“¢Commentatio de Psarolithis, lignifossilis genere,” the best treatise on 
fossil woods that had thus far appeared. He reviews the history of the 
subject from a rational stand-point, gives a systematic classification, and 
describes six species of Endogenites, illustrating internal structure in 
one plate. The work is a small octavo pamphlet of 42 pages, published 
at Halle, in Latin; but for one so unpretentiousit has commanded a high 
tribute of respect. 

In 1829 Phillips published Part I of his “Geology of Yorkshire,” so 
well known to both geologists and paleontologists. Like most English 
writers, he was behind the writers of France and Germany in appreciat- 
ing the revolution in modes of explanation which the logic of facts had 
wrought, and we find him saying (p. 16) that ‘of many important facts 
which come under the consideration of geologists the ‘Deluge’ is, 
perhaps, the most remarkable; and it is established by such clear and 
positive arguments that if any one point of natural history may be con- 
sidered as proved, the Deluge must be admitted to have happened, be- 
cause it has left full evidence in plain and characteristic effects upon 
the surface of the earth.” But he proceeds to qualify this statement by 
the admission that organic remains “were certainly deposited in the 
rocks before the Deluge.” 

He enumerates (pp. 147, 148, 189, 190) and figures (Pl. VII, VIII) a 
number of Jurassic fossil plants from what he calls the Upper Sand- 
stone, Shale, and Coal, which have formed an interesting chapter in the 
history of the Mesozoic flora of the globe. Brongniart’s method of ar- 
ranging these vegetable remains is adopted. 

Passing over the year 1830, which was characterized by considerable 
activity, as evinced by numerous minor papers of Brongniart, Witham, 
and others, we will pause to consider the most important work of this 
time, which began to appear in quarterly numbers in 1831, viz., “ The 
Fossil Flora of Great Britain,” under the happy joint editorship of Dr. 
John Tindley; the eminent botanist, and William 2 Hutton, cane equany 

thaoasles des sciences naturelles, Vol. XII, Dp. 335, XIV, p. 127, KV, j pp. 43, 225, 435, 


renowned geologist. This work continued to appear until 1837, when it 
was suspended. The whole is now bound in three shapely octavo vol 
umes, and forms an indispensable part of the library of every paleo- 
botanist. From such an authorship was certainly to be expected a 
work of the highest authority and merit, and, indeed, such it really is. 
The illustrations are as fine as could be attained for the octavo size, 
and the text is both ample and accurate; but the greater part of the 
introductory remarks in Volume I, as well as much of the general dis- 
cussion throughout the work, is characterized by a most astonishing 
and apparently willful ignorance of the true principles of paleophytology 
as they were set forth by Brongniart, Sternberg, and even Schlotheim. 
One of the most remarkable aberrations of the book is the pertinacity 
with which the authors contend for the existence of cactaceous and 
euphorbiaceous plants in the coal-measures. It is true that Parkinson!” 
had seen a fancied resemblance between certain stems and those of 
large cacti, and several similar guesses had been made by early au- 
thors,’ who supposed they must find the counterpart of every fossil in 
the living flora, but all these imaginings had been long since laid aside 
only to be revived by the leading botanist of Europe. 

The theory of a former tropical climate in England and temperate 
Europe is assailed, the existence of tree ferns in the Carboniferous is 
denied, and the relation of Calamites to the Equisetacee doubted, while 
to the now somewhat waning doctrine of atmospheric changes “ much 
more probability is attached.” The true secret of this sweeping skepti- 
cism is, however, not far to seek. It is found in the more general 
denial which is finally made of the conclusion to which an admission of 
these rejected theories would naturally lead, and had actually led M. 
Brongniart and others. The authors say: ‘Of a still more question- 
able character is the theory of progressive development, as applied to the 
state of vegetation in successive ages * * * in the vegetable king- 
dom, it cannot be conceded that any satisfactory evidence has yet been 
produced upon the subject; on the contrary, the few data that exist, 
appear to prove exactly the contrary.” All the denials and assertions 
contrary to Brongniart’s teachings are made to support this view. The 
existence of Cactaceze, Euphorbiacex, and other Dicotyledons in the 
Carboniferous would negative development; the existence of a former 
tropical climate was a strong argument for the nebular hypothesis as well 
as for geologic progress; tree-ferns would argue such a former tropical 
climate; if Calamites could be shown to be a Juncus (Vol. I, p. xxx), a 
higher type would be found in Paleozoic strata and another point gained. 
Still another good point was thought to be gained by proving what is 
now admitted, that Coniferous plants occur in the coal. All botanists 
proper then held, as many still hold, that the Gymnosperms were a 

177 Organic Remains, Vol. I, pp. 430, 439, Pl. V, Fig. 8, Pl. IX, Fig. 10. 
172Volkmann. Silesia subterranea, p.106; Walch, Naturgeschichte der Versteiner- 
ungen, Tab. Xa, Xb, Xe. 


subclass of the Dicotyledons, co-ordinate with the dicotyledonous 
Angiosperms. But, curiously enough, Brongniart had forestalled this 
argument by making the Gymnosperms of lower type, intermediate be- 
tween the Cryptogams and the angiospermous Phanerogams. By a 
special insight, characteristic of true scientific genius, he had used their 
lower geological position as a partial proof of their lower organization, 
i. é., had postulated evolution as an aia to organic research—a method 
which is now becoming quite common, although unsafe except in the 
hands of a master. 

Much stress is laid upon the fact “that no trace of any glumaceous 
plant has been met with, even in the latest Tertiary rocks,” the authors 
thus freely employirg the fallacy which they elsewhere warn others to 
avoid, that because a class of plants has not been found, therefore it 
did not exist in a given formation. But to cut off the possibility of a 
reply to the position they take they finally declare that, “ supposing 
that Sigillarias and Stigmarias could really be shown to be cryptogamic 
plants, and that it could be absolutely demonstrated that neither Coni- 
fere nor any other dicotyledonous plants existed in the first geological 
age of land plants, still the theory of progressive development would 
be untenable, because it would be necessary to show that Monocotyle- 
dons are inferior in dignity, or, to use a more intelligible expression, 
are less perfectly formed than Dicotyledons. So far is this from being 
the case that if exact equality of the two classes were not admitted, it 
would be a question whether Monocotyledons are not the more highly 
organized of the two; whether palms are not of greater dignity than 
oaks, and Cerealia than nettles.” Teleologic and anthropocentric reas- 
oning like this pervades all the discussions in the work and largely 
vitiates the scientific deductions. The elaborate experiment of Dr. 
Lindley, described in the first dozen pages of the third volume, was 
obviously animated by the same spirit of uncompromising hostility to 
the development hypothesis that inspired the vagaries that character- 
ize the introduction to the first volume. By showing that the higher 
types of plants when long immersed in water are earlier decomposed 
than ferns, conifers, and palms, he thought he had demonstrated that 
the reason why we find no Dicotyledons in the Carboniferous is simply 
because they had not resisted, and from their nature could not resist 
the destructive agencies to be overcome in the process of petrifaction. 
One could wish that he might look down upon the four thousand species 
of fossil Dicotyledons now known, and realize how vain had been his 
experiment as well as all his former theorizing. 

One work of special interest and value appeared in 1832, “ Die 
Dendrolithen iu Beziehung auf ihren inneren Bau,” by C. Bernhard Cotta. 
This was a renewed attempt to classify systematically and describe 
scientifically the various kinds of fossil wood that had been discovered. 
Following in the footsteps of Sprengel, but provided with far more and 
better material, Cotta made a special study of the internal structure of 


all the trunks and stems in his collection, establishing new genera and 
species based thereon, some of which are still accepted, as, é. g., Psar- 
onius. He reduces the forms in which all vegetable remains occur to 
three general classes, viz., (1) mere impressions without any remnant 
of the original cause; (2) petrifactions proper, in which the original 
substance is replaced with precision by the particles which were in the 
solution in which the plant was immersed; and (3) true vegetable re- 
mains whose substance is still present though somewhat metamor- 
phosed, as, e¢. g., lignite. This classification may be profitably com- 
pared with that of Schultze, in the work which has already been no- 
ticed.% His Dendrolithen embrace more than did Sprengel’s Psaro- 
lithi, and aimed to include all the objects of this general class with 
which he was acquainted. 

Witham’s “Internal Structure of Fossil Vegetables” (supra, p. 373), 
appeared in 1833, and is the most exhaustive treatise thus far produced 
on the histology of paleobotany. He was evidently unacquainted with 
Cotta’s “ Dendrolithen,” and, so far as the work itself would indicate, with 
Sprengel’s “ De Psarolithis.” He confined his investigations entirely to 
British fossils, to which he is able in most cases to apply the systematic 
names given by Brongniart and Lindley and Hutton. The classifica- 
tion adopted is that of Brongniart. He makes his study comparative, 
and devotes two plates to the illustration of the structure of various 
kinds of wood of living trees. 

One other important work appeared in 1833, viz., Zenker’s “ Beitrige 
zur Naturgeschichte der Urwelt,” °° which, while describing animal re- 
mains from several localities and horizons, devotes 23 of its 67 pages, 
and three of the six plates to the description and illustration of the re- 
markable Cretaceous plant beds of Blankenburg in the Harz district. 
This memoir is remarkable for being the first attempt systematically to 
treat dicotyledonous fossils, and notwithstanding the adverse fate which 
has overtaken nearly all the names given at that and earlier periods to 
plants of all kinds, Zenker’s genus, Credneria, still stands, and seems 
likely to stand much longer, if not perpetually. Though less well 
known than the Giningen leaf-prints, this locality was known to Scheuch- 
zer, Briickmann, and Walch, but its systematic study as well as the 
jnitial step in the investigation of dicotyledonous fossil plants was re- 
served for Zenker in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. 

The year 1834 would be sufficiently memorable in the annals of paleo- 
botany if it had witnessed nothing more than the appearance of the 
first memoir * relating to the subject, from the pen of Doctor Heinrich 

19 Kurtze Betrachtung derer Kriuterabdriicke im Steinreiche, pp. 7-9. 

10 Jonathan Carl Zenker. Beitrige zur Naturgeschichte der Urwelt, etc. Jena, 

481 Jeber die Bestrebungen der Schlesier die Flora der Vorwelt zu erliutern. Schle- 
sische Provincialblaitter, August und September, 1834, Also in Karsten und Dechen’s 
Archiv, Band VIII, 1835, pp. 232-249. 


Robert Géppert, of Breslau, whose career we have already briefly 
sketched, and whose death since the first draft of that sketch was made 
occasioned an unavoidable shock notwithstanding the ripened age which 
our biographic notice showed him to have attained (supra, p. 373). 

No important works on fossil plants appeared in 1835, and the princi- 
pal production of 1836, in this line of research, was Goppert’s “ Systema 
Filicum Fossilium,” which had probably been in preparation for 
many years. It was a masterly effort and fittingly betokened the great 
career of its author. The historical introduction remains the best re- 
view of paleobotanical science that has ever been written, and shows that 
the literature of the subject had long been a favorite pursuit of Dr. 
Géppert. Nearly all the figures of fossil ferns that had been drawn by 
the early authors were discussed and identified by the light of more 
recent knowledge. Rigid comparisons were instituted between fossil 
and living species, and systematic descriptions of the former so far as 
then known were introduced. In the forty-four plates that accompany 
the work are figured most of the Silesian species, which the author de- 
clares to be more numerous than those of any other country. 

Géppert’s contributions during the next year (1837) were numerous ! 
and important, and, taken with the equally valuable ones of Brong- 
niart,!™ render this year a good one for their branch of science. 

The year 1838 was still more fruitful in published results, as many as 
a dozen memoirs having been produced in Europe. One of the most 
important of these has already been mentioned!® (supra, p. 380), in 
which the first serious attempt was made to determine dicotyledonous 
genera by the aid of the nervation of their leaves. 

In this year also appeared the eighth number of Sternberg’s “ Flora 
der Vorwelt,” containing Corda’s “Skizzen zur vergleichenden Phyto- 
tomie vor- und jetztweltlichen Pflanzen,” whose merits have already 
been referred to (supra, p. 371). 

The year 1839 produced the first contributions of both Geinitz (supra, 
p. 374) and Binney, thus adding two important names to the roll of 
colaborers in this field. The Count of Miinster’s “ Beitrige zur Petre- 

18 Systema Filicum Fossilium: Die Fossilen Farnkriuter. Nov. Act. Acad. Caes, 
Leop. Car., Tom. XVII, Suppl., pp. 1-76. 

8 Uebersicht der bis jetzt bekannten fossilen Pflanzen. In Germar’s Handbuch 
der Mineralogie, 1837. 

Idem, Two papers on fossil wood: Neues Jabrbuch fiir Mineralogie, 1837, p. 403, 
and Verhandl. d. schles. Gesell., 1837, pp. 68-76; and an important one on the pro- 
cess of petrifaction: Poggendorf’s Annalen, Band XLII, 1837, §. 593. 

Comptes Rendus, Paris, 1837, Tome V, p. 403; Proc. verb. de la soc. philom., 
1837, p. 99; Mém. de l’Acad. Roy., Tome XVI, 1838, p. 397. 

+5 Sul sistema vascolare delle foglie, considerato come carattere distintivo per la 
determinazione delle filliti. N. Ann. d. Sc. Nat. Bologna, 1838 Ann. I, Tom. I, pp. 
343-390, Pl. VII-XIII. 

186 “On a microscopic vegetable skeleton found in peat, near Gainsborough.” Brit- 
ish Association Report, 1839 (Part II), pp. 71, 72. 


factenkunde” also began to appear in that year, to which several of the 
most prominent German paleobotanists contributed. 

Three very important works appeared in 1840. Bowerbank’s “ Fos- 
sil Fruits and Seeds of the London Clay”+*’ marked a great advance in 
the state of knowledge of the remarkable bodies studied by him, and 
which, since Parsons called attention to them in 1757, and in fact 
for many years previous to that time, had excited the interest of both 
the learned and the unlearned. Of these remarkable forms Bowerbank 
established ten genera, all but two of which (Hightea and Cucumites) 
are accepted by Schimper in his “Traité de paléontologie végétale.” 
The number of species distinguished is quite large, and the descrip- 
tions and illustrations are very thorough and exact. The work is in- 
tensely scientific, and the reader is rarely referred to other authors or 
to any of the collateral cireumstances that would have so greatly aided 
him in understanding it properly. Exact localities are rarely given, 
though the island of Sheppey seems to have furnished a large share of 
the specimens. ; # 

The work of Steininger,™ treating of the fossil plants of what he 
designates as the “ pfalzisch-saarbriickische Steinkohlengebirge,” may 
next be mentioned, in which 83 species of coal plants are described, 
with 17 illustrations. The work, however, is chiefly geognostic. 

Rossmissler’s treatise on the lignitic sandstone about Altsattel in 
Bohemia,’ almost marks an epoch in the science of fossil plants from the 
resolute, and in many respects, successful manner in which the author 
attacks the problem of dicotyledonous leaves, which had thus far been 
regarded as beyond the power of science to harmonize with the living 
flora. He clearly realized the objections to the use of Sternberg’s uni- 
versal genus Phyllites for all plants of this class, and in stating these ob- 
jections he says, among other things, that in the great quantity of leaves 
that will be distinguished in the course of careful investigations of Ter- 
tiary strata the species of this vague genus Phyllites cannot fail to increase 
so enormously that all resources for deriving specific names will be ex- 
hausted. He first proposed to himself to determine the true genera to 
which the leaves seemed to belong, and then to append the old name 
phyllites to these genera, as, ¢.g., Leuco-phyllites, Daphno-phyliites, ete. ; 
but the fear of responsibility, the comparatively unimportant and local 
character of his work, and the advice of friends deterred him from car- 

187 James Scott Bowerbank. A History of the Fossil Fruits and Seeds of the London 
Clay. London, 1840. 

188 James Parsons. An Account of some Fossils and other Bodies found in the Island 
of Shepey. Phil. Trans., 1757, Vol. L, pp. 2, 396. 

19 J, Steininger. Geognostische Beschreibung des Landes zwischen der unteren 
Saar und dem Rheine. Ein Bericht an die Gesellschaft niitzlicher Forschungen zu 
Trier. Trier, 1840. 

190 &, A. Rossmissler. Beitrige zur Versteinerungskunde. Erstes Heft. Die Ver- 
steinerungen des Braunkohlensandsteins, aus der Gegend von Altsattel in BOhmen. 
Dresden und Leipzig, 1840. 


rying out his plan and decided him to employ under strong protest the 
old name. He described forty-eight Phyllites, all of which are so ad- 
mirably figured as regards nervation that it has been no trouble for 
later writers to refer them to their proper genera. He also describes a 
palm (Flabellaria), several cones of Pinus, and a coniferous stem that 
he mistook for Stigmaria, though it is due to him to say that he recog- 
nized the entire novelty of finding a Stigmaria in the Tertiary formatiou. 

In addition to these and some minor contributions during the year 
1840, it was, as already shown, the one in which the earliest papers of 
both Unger! aud Schimper™ on fossil plants made their appearance. 

The principal contribution made iu 1841 was Géppert’s ‘‘ Gattungen 
der Fossilen Pilanzen,”! which appeared originally in six parts, with 
German and French text and many plates. It embraces a fundamental 
discussion of the existing knowledge of fossil plants. It must not be 
supposed that it is confined to the description of generic characters. 
The characteristic species of each genus are fully portrayed. The author 
still clings to the ancient floras, chiefly to the Carboniferous. The work 
has an unfinished appearance, and the parts have been put together by 
the publishers in a most slovenly manner, which, however, should not 
be allowed to detract from the true merits, as it certainly does from the 
usefulness, of this work. 

A number of other papers by Géppert must be credited to 1841, the 
most important of which was his “ Fossile Flora des Quadersandsteins 
von Schlesien,”!* which he supposed to belong to the Tertiary system, 
while in connection with Beinert he published in the same year a me- 
moir on the distribution of fossil plants in the Carboniferous formation.’ 

The little work of Alexander Petzholdt, “ De Calamitis et .Lithan- 
thracibus ” (Dresde et Lipsia, 1841), possesses merits not to be meas- 
ured by its size. It has done much to clear up both subjects, and also 
to advance them, and the collection given of opinions which have been 
expressed by those best situated to know respecting the nature of the 
Calamite, and especially respecting the origin of coal, must continue to 

191 Supra, p. 375, note 9. 

12 Baumfarne, Schachtelhalme, Cycadeen, Aethophyllum, Albertia * * * im 
bunten Sandstein der Vogesen; Hysterium auf einem Pappel-Blatte der Wetterauer 
Braunkohle. Lonhard und Bronn’s Neue Jahrbiicher, 1840, pp. 336-338. Communica- 
tion dated 14. Mirz, 1840. 

18 Die Gattuugen der fossilen Pflanzen verglichen mit denen der Jetztwelt und 
durch Abbildungen erlautert (Les genres des plantes fossiles comparés avec ceux du 
monde moderne expliqués par des figures). Bonn, I-IV. Lfg., 1841, V-VI. Lfg., 1842- 

194Ueber die fossile Flora der Quadersandsteinformation in Schlesien als erster 
Beitrag zur Flora der Tertiirgebilde. Nov. Act. Acad. Ces. Leop. Tom. XXIX, 1841, 
p. 97. 

1% Goppert & Beinert. Ueber Verbreitung der fossiler Gewiichse in der Steinkohlen- 
formation. Karsten & Dechen’s Archiv., Band XV, 1841, p. 731. 


have great historical value. As much may also be said for still another 
book of Petzholdt, published the same year, “De Balano et Calamo- 
syringe (Additamente ad Paleologiam). 

Although the first number of Unger’s “Chloris Protogea” appeared 
in 1841, still the work was not published until six years later, and con- 
tains preliminary matter of later origin and of such moment as to ren- 
der it more proper to speak of the work as a whole in the chronological 
order of its final publication. 

In 1842 numerous papers relating to fossil plants appeared in the cur- 
rent periodicals by Binney, Gippert, Gutbier, Kutorga, Unger, and 
others, all contributing to swell the literature of the science and supply 
the data for future generalization. Mr. Williamson’s paper before the 
British Association of that year on the origin of coal (supra, p. 376) has 
already been referred to as a landmark to indicate the point of time at 
which he joined the growing band of workers in this field. Miquel’s 
monograph of the Cycadacezx,’® although dealing chiefly in the living 
forms, takes account also of the fossil cycads, and forms a contribution 
to the subject that was much needed in its day. In Vanuxem’s “ Geol- 
ogy of New York,” which forms Part III of the “ Natural History of 
New York” (Albany, 1842), occur numerous figures of fossil plants, with 
some general remarks thereon. 

Some dozen or more memoirs on fossil plants appeared in 1843, the 
most important of which were by Roemer!” and Parlatore.!% The first 
edition of Morris’s “Catalogue of British Fossils” °° (including fossil 
plants) also appeared in that year. 

The number of contributions to the science of fossil plants in 1844 
was considerably larger than in the previous year. It includes Schim- 
per and Mougeot’s ‘‘ Monographie des plantes fossiles du grés bigarré 
de la Chaine des Vosges,” a work of considerable importance. In it are 
described and figured. species of MWthophyllum, of surprising form and 
perfection, also Yuecites and other of the most ancient monocotyledo- 
nous types; Albertias, Voltzias, Schizoneuras, and Ferns. 

Numerous short papers by Géppert relate to the lignite beds, and 
show that he was working up towards the subject of amber inclusions, 
which were soon to engross his attention; and one of these relates to 
the existence of amber in his own country,” and gives an historical ac- 

196}°, A. G. Miquel. Monographia Cycadearum. Trajecti ad Rheum. Fol. cum 8 

197 Friedrich Adolph Roemer. Die Versteinerung des Harzgebirges. Hanover, 
1843, 4to. — ; 

198 Filippo Parlatore. Intorno ai vegetali fossili di monte Bamboli e di monte Massi. 
Atti d. Georgofili d. Firenze, Vol. XXI, pp. 1-83. Firenze, 1843. ; 

19 John Morris. A Catalogue of British Fossils, comprising genera and species hith- 
erto described with references to their geological distribution and to the localities in 
which they have been found. London, 1843. Second edition, considerably enlarged. 
London, 1854. ; 

200 Tleber das Vorkommen des Bernsteins in Schlesien. Uebersicht d. schles, Gesell., 

1844, S, 228. 


count of its discovery there, with a list of all the localities known to him. 
Besides giving a summary of the fossil flora of Silesia, in Wimmer’s 
“Flora von Schlesien” (Breslau, 1844), Géppert prepared a laborious 
statistical paper” on the condition of the science at that date, which 
is highly interesting to consult now. The whole number of species then 
known to him was 1,778, of which 927 were vascular Cryptogams and 
242 Gymnosperms. 

Germar’s great work on the Carboniferous flora of Wettin and Liébe- 
jin®” began. to appear in 1844 and continued in -parts until 1853. 
Though treating of all the forms of life found in this district, the work 
is necessarily devoted mainly to plauts, and the large folio plates display 
great thoroughness of treatment. To Dr. Andra is due considerable of 
the text. : 

Probably no year since 1828 was more fruitful of results in paleo- 
botany than 1845, and no year since has exceeded it, if we only speak 
relatively to the state of the science. Two of the greatest, American con- 

' tributors, Lesquereux *’ and Dawson (supra, p. 377, note 15), entered the 

ranks at this point, although their first papers gave little earnest of 
their future career. Besides some twenty minor papers and several 
small monographs and memoirs of permanent value, we have four large 
and important works that were either finished or well begun and fairly 
before the public on that year. Upon the first class we have here no 
space for comment. Among those of the second may first be mentioned 
Kurr’s memoir on the Jurassic flora of Wiirttemberg, 2 in which some 
dozen new species of Conifere, ferns, and lower Cryptogams are figured. 
His supposed discovery of true dicotyledonous (cupuliferous) wood has 
not been verified. 

Two papers by Géppert are worthy of mention, one describing fossils 
from the coal measures of Siberia, collected by M. P. de Tchihatcheff, 
and published by that traveler in his “ Voyage dans l’Altai,”2® with 
eleven plates, and one on the fossil flora of the middle Jura of Upper 

*01 Ueber den gegenwiirtigen Zustand der Kenntniss fossiler Pflanzen, 1844. Leonh. 
u. Bronn’s Neues Jahrbuch, 1845, S. 405, 

“Ernst Friedrich Germar. Die Versteinerungen des Steinkohlengebirges von Wet- 
tin u. Lébejiin im Saalkreise. (Petrificata stratorum lithanthracum Wettini et Lobe- 
juni in cireulo Salsae roperta.) Halle, 1844~53, fol. (Printed in German and Latin). 

203“ @uelques recherches sur les marais tourbeux en général.” Mémoires de la 
Société des sciences naturelles de Neuchatel, Tome III, 1845. 

24 Johann Gottlob Kurr. Beitrige zur fossilen Flora der Juraformation Wirttem- 
berg, Stuttgart, 1845 (Kinladungsschrift 2u der Feier des Geburtsfestes Sr. Majestat 

Wilhelm von Wiirttemberg in der kénigl. polytechnischen Schule zu Stuttgart den 
27. September, 1845). 

20 Description des végétaux fossiles recueillis par M. P. de Tchihatcheff en Sibérie, 
traduit du manuserit allemand par P. de Tchihatcheff et publié dans son ‘‘ Voyage 
scientifique dans ]’Altai Oriental et les parties adjacentes de la frontidre de la Chine, 
pages 379 & 390, planches 25 a 35, 

> Ueber die fossile Flora der mittleren Juraschichten in Oberschlesien. Uebersicht 
der schles, Gesellsch. 1845, p. 139. 


Adolphe Brongniart named the fossil plants of Murchison’s Geology 
of Russia” and published an explanatory letter. 

One other paper of the minor class may be mentioned, chiefly because 
it describes American material, viz., that of Dr. James Hall in his report 
upon the vegetable remains collected by Frémont’s expedition in 1842.28 
Eleven species of fossil plants are described in this report, besides the 
figure (Pl. II, Fig. 4), and mention of a dicotyledonous leaf, which last 
diagnosis is undoubtedly in so far correct. The determination of the 
ferns is also correct, except in the case of his Glossopteris Phillipsii 
(Pl. II, Figs. 5, 5a, 5b, 5c), which is not a fern but another dicotyledonous 
plant, as may be seen by the secondary veins and the absence of the 
characteristic forked nervation of Glossopteris. In these and other re- 
spects these figures do not agree with those of Brongniart (“‘ Hist. veg. 
foss”., Pl. 61, bis Fig. 5) and Phillips (Geol. Yorkshire,” Pt. I, Pl. VIII, 
Fig. 8). This is not the place to enter into the diagnosis and state the. 
true affinities of these leaves, and indeed from the figures alone this 
would be a somewhat hazardous task; as yet only a few of the types 
figured are in my hands, and of this species only one of the least per- 
fect specimens, but this and other unfigured fragments fully confirm its 
reference to the Dicotyledons. Of the geological position of the locality 
from which this material was derived one can perhaps speak with 
greater certainty. It is at least certain that it is not Oolitic, as Dr. Hall 
supposed, and it is probably Cretaceous, perhaps Laramie group. If the 
latitude and longitude (lat. 414°, long. 111°) were accurately taken this 
would make Muddy Creek a tributary of the Bear River at a point which 
is colored as Cretaceous on the new map of the United States Geological 
Survey prepared by Mr. W. J. McGee (1884). The report will at least 
serve to direct attention to this locality. 

Among the larger works that appeared in 1845, we will first mention 
Unger’s “ Synopsis Plantarum Fossilium,” which is a carefully-prepared 
catalogue of all the fossil plants known to him with references to the 
works in which first described. The orders and genera are briefly char- 
acterized, and the localities are stated for the species. At the end isa 
summary, from which we learn that he had been able to enumerate 
1,648 species. This, as will be remembered, is 130 species less than 
Géppert had enumerated a year earlier. It probably was, however, a 
closer approximation to the true state of the science. A complete index 
and a good bibliography rendered the work convenient for reference, 
and we can readily imagine its extreme usefulness at that date. 

Probably the most important work of this year was Corda’s “ Flora 

2%7Geologie de la Russie d’Europe et des montagnes de l’Oural, par Roderick Impey 
Murchison, Edouard de Verneuil, et le Comte Alexandre de Keyserling. Londres et 
Paris, 1845, Tome II, pp. 1-13. ; 

208 Report of the Exploring Expedition tothe Rocky Mountains in the year 1842, and to 
Oregon and North California in the years 184344. By Capt. J. C. Frémont, Wash- 
ington, 1845, pp. 304-307, plates I and II. 

GEOL 84——27 


der Vorwelt.”2 It is a large work in folio, with 128 pages of text and 
sixty magnificent plates, chiefly devoted to the illustration of the inter- 
nal structure of petrified and carbonized trunks in various families of 
the vegetable kingdom and at different geological horizons, but mainly 
in the Carboniferous. As the only considerable work on this subject 
since Witham’s (supra, p. 373), it was as much superior to that work as 
the aids to research were greater than they had been twelve years ear- 

In the same year also appeared Reuss’s “‘ Versteinerungen der béhm- 
ischen Kreideformation,” to which Corda contributed the fossil plants 
in a chapter of sixteen quarto pages, with six plates executed with the 
same care and thoroughness that is characteristic of all his work. 

One other masterly production, viz., Gdppert’s Amber-Flora, in Ber- 
endt’s great work on amber,” will conclude the enumeration for the year 
1845. His prolonged investigations into the lignite beds of Europe and 
his study of the amber found in Silesia naturally led to this broader un- 
dertdaking and fittingly prepared him for it. He begins with a chapter 
on the amber tree. Of this he remarks that the pieces of wood that 
occur in and along with amber bear so close a resemblance to the spe- 
cimens of lignite in his collection, that he does not for a moment hesi- 
tate, at least provisionally, to express the opinion that the amber of Prus- 
sia is probably derived from one species, which, from its similarity to 
the Coniferse of the present epoch, he refers to the extinct genus Pinites, 
and which he designates as Pinites succinifer, and fully characterized 
in the systematic part of the work. This follows, beginning with a list 
of the species thus far found in amber, of which he enumerates fifty- 
three. He finds six other species of Pinites and twenty of Conifer. 
There are ten cellular plants (chiefly mosses and Hepaticz), one fern, 
one gnetaceous species (Ephedrites), and twenty-one true Dicotyledons. 
The descriptions come next, and are accompanied by appropriate and 

very elaborate illustrations. 
Very little idea of the true geologic age of these fossils is derivable 

from any of the statements contained in this work, either by Géppert or 
Berendt, and it is still quite the practice to refer these forms to the 
amber simply, without further attempt to fix their position. Butina 
paper read before the Silesian Society, May 11, 1853, Dr. Géppert ex- 
pressed himself very clearly on this point. He said: “The manner in 
which this flora is composed, as well as the complete absence of one 
tropical or even subtropical form, points to the modern age of the amber 
formation, which we must unquestionably refer to the latest strata of 
the Tertiary formation, to the Pliocene division.”2" By this time the 

*” Beitriige zur Flora der Vorwelt, von August Joseph Corda, mit sechszig Tafeln 
Abbildungen.  Prag., 1845. 

0 Georg Carl Berendt. Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vor- 
welt. Erster Band, Berlin, 1845. I. Abtheilung: Der Bernstein und die in ihm be- 
findlichen Paanzenreste der Vorwelt (chiefly by Géppert). 

* Jahresbericht d. Schles, Gesellschaft fir vaterlandische Cultur, 1853 (Breslau, 
1854), pp. 46-62, (see p. 373). 


amber flora had greatly increased, and 163 species are enumerated in 
this paper. This result was, however, in the main achieved through 
the indefatigable labors of Dr. Géppert. ° 

In strong contrast with 1845 stands the next year, at least as regards 
the importance of the works produced relating to fossil plants. Dunker’s 
monograph of the Wealden?” is perhaps the leading contribution of 
1846, and this embraces all departments of paleontology for that group. 
But the plants form a prominent feature. Fifty species of Wealden 
plants are enumerated as having been thus far found in Germany and 
England, nearly all of which are described and figured. In this last 
respect Dunker’s work is all of a high order, which is nowhere more 
strongly displayed than in the treatise under consideration. 

Géppert’s papers were numerous in 1846, and at least one “ Ueber die 
fossile Flora der Grauwacke oder des Uebergangsgebirges”,”" contained 
the germ of one of his future great works.?4 

Heer** and Bunbury (supra, p. 379, note 19) both commenced in 1846 
to write on fossil plants. 

The only great work devoted to paleobotany that appeared in 1847 
was Unger’s “Chloris Protogea,””* which, as already stated, was pub- 
lished in ten numbers, the first of which came out in 1841. In the course 
of the preparation of these numbers his “Synopsis plantarum fossilium” 
appeared, which we have already noticed. The entire matter of this 
little work was introduced bodily, and apparently unchanged, into the 
larger one, forming its second part. The first part, or introduction, is 
entitled “Skizzen einer Geschichte der Vegetation der Erde.” This is 
an able discussion of the leading problems as they presented them- 
selves at that time and went far toward the solution of some of them. 
The body of the work is strictly descriptive, and here we find 120 species 
characterized, all new to science or consisting of corrected determina- 
tions of other authors. What specially distinguishes this work, how- 
ever, from all that have thus far been reviewed is the very large percent- 
age of dicotyledonous species, mostly from Parschlug, embraced in these 
descriptions. Considerably over one-half of the number belong to this 
subclass and to such genera as Ulmus, Alnus, Betula, Quercus, Acer, 
Rhus, Platanus, Ceanothus, Rhamnuus, ete. He seems to have reached 
his determinations of these genera by an intuitive perception of the 
general and special resemblances of the fossil to the living leaves, with 

2\2 Wilhelm Dunker. Monographie der Norddeutschen Wealdenbildung. Ein Beit- 
rag zur Geognosie und Naturgeschichte der Vorwelt. Braunschweig, 1846. 

213Jebersicht der Arbeiten der schlesien Gesellschaft, 1846, pp. 178-184 (expanded 
in the Zeitschrift d. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch. Band III, 1851, 8. 185). 

214Fossile Flora des Uebergangsgebirges, Nov. Act. Acad. Caes. Leop. Car. Nat. Cur. 
Band XXII, Suppl. Breslau & Bonn, 1852. 

25 The first paper of which we have a record is the one “Ueber die von ihm an der 
hohen Rhone entdekten fossilen Pflanzen,” which appeared in the Verhandlungen der 
schweizerischen Gesellschaft for 1846, pp. 35-38. _ 

16Franz Unger. Chloris Protogea. Beitrage zur Flora der Vorwelt. Leipzig, 1847, 


which, as a thorough botanist, he was perfectly familiar. He nowhere 
refers to any treatise on the nervation of leaves, and as those of Bianconi 
(supra, p. 380, note 27) are not included in his “Literatura nostri evi,” 
it is probably safe to infer that he was unacquainted with them. In 
drawing his figures he adopted the old method of figuring the stone 
as well as all the defects in the impression, which while requiring an 
immense amount of unprofitable labor, rendered the result much less 
clear and less valuable than it would have been had these features been 
omitted. The fifty plates, however, by which this work is illustrated 
constitute an enduring monument to the skill, energy, and industry of 
their author. 

Pomel’s paper on the Jurassic flora of France,” which appeared in the 
official report of the association of German naturalists and physicians 
for 1847, though unaccompanied by illustrations, proved a highly im- 
portant contribution and gave a new impetus to the study of that 
formation from the vegetable side. 

Some dozen or more other memoirs of greater or less import were 
contributed during 1847 by Binney,”” Fr. Braun,” Bunbury,”° Gép- 
pert,”! Lesquereux,”” Rouillier,”* and others, none of which can be 
specially considered here. 

About thirty papers and books, small and great, relating to fossil 
plants appeared in 1848, none of which, however, can be ranked as great 
works, unless it be Bronn’s Index Palontologicus,”* which merely 
includes the plants with all other fossils in one alphabetical arrange- 
ment. The number, however, of what may be classed as second-rate 
productions was quite large. Among these we may count Unger’s 
“Flora von Parschlug,””* Berger’s thesis “De fructibus et seminibus 

27M, A. Pomel. Amtlicher Bericht der Versammlung der deutschen Naturforscher 
und Aertzte, 1847, pp. 332-354. 

218 Phil. Mag. Vol. XXXI, 1847, p. 259. 

219Frtedrich Braun. Die fossilen Gewichse aus den Grinzschichten zwischen dem 
Lias und Keuper des neu aufgefundenen Pflanzenlagers in dem Steinbruche von Veit- 
lahm bei Culmbach. Flora, Regensburg, 1847, p. 81. (Enumerates 57 species of Rhe- 
tic plants. 

#20 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, 1847, Vol. III, pp. 281, 423. 

221 Uebersicht der Arbeiten d. schles. Gesellschaft, 1847, pp. 70-73. 

22 Explorations dans le Nord de l’/Europe pour I’étude des dépéts de combustibles 
minéraux. Bull. Soc, Sci. Nat. de Neuchatel, Tome I, 1847, p. 471. Idem sur les plantes 
qui forment la houille. Bibl. Univ. Archives, Tome VI, p. 158. Genéve, 1847. 

»8C. Rouillier. Etudes paléontologiques de Moscou, in Fischer de Waldheim’s 
Jubilaeum semisecularem. Moscou, 1847. (Bois fossiles, pp. 20-24). 

1 Heinrich G. Bronn. Handbuch einer Geschichte der Natur. III. Band., III. 
Theil. Organisches Leben. Index Palxontologicus, oder Uebersicht der bis jetzt be- 
kannten fossilen Organismen. Stuttgart, 1843-1849. A. Nomenclator palexoutologi- 
cus, 1848. B. Enumerator palwontologicus, 1849. 

6 Die fossile Flora von Parschlug. Steiermirckische Zeitschrift, IX. Jahrg., I 
Heft. 1848. ° 


ex formatione lithanthracum,”” Binney “On the origin of coal,”” three 
consecutive papers by Dr. J. D. Hooker in the Memoirs of the Geologi- 
cal Survey of Great Britain,” Debey, on the fossil plants of Aachen,” 
Géppert’s prize essay on the formation of coal, °° Raulin’s “ Flore de 
YEurope pendant la période tertiaire,*! Robert Brown’s memoir on Trip- 
losporites,*” really announcing the discovery of the fruit of Lepidoden- 
dron, and Sauveur’s “ Végétaux fossiles de Belgique.”?> These works 
were all important additions to the literature of the science, and rep- 
resented a large amount of original research. 

The third volume of Bronn’s Index Palwontologicus, namely, the 
Enumerator, did not appear until 1849. It contains Géppert’s table of 
the vegetable fossils as known to him, arranged under their respective 
geological formations. All the species are enumerated in systematic 
order, but with an inconvenient appendix (pp. 5-72), and arenot summed 
up at the end. The summary is, however, introduced in another part 
of the volume (p. 727), and shows that considerable progress had been 
made since 1847, when Unger made his synopsis in his ‘ Chloris Pro- 
togaea,” although, a8 already remarked, the 1,648 species there given 
is the same as given in his “Synopsis plantarum fossilium” (1845), 
which seems not to have been revised, while Géppert had already 
enumerated in 1844 (supra, p. 416) 1,778 species. From these figures we 
now have an advance to 2,055, or more than four times as many as were 
known to Brongniart in 1828, though only about one-fourth the num- 
ber now known. 

The great work of 1849 was Brongniart’s “Tableau des genres de végé- 
taux fossiles.”* The author’s views relating to the classification and 

26 Reinhold Berger. De fructibus et seminibus ex formatione lithanthracum. Dis- 
sertatio inauguralis quam consensu et auctoritate amplissimi philosophorum ordinis 
in alma litterarum universitate viadrina ad summas in philosophia honores rite capes- 
sendos die XVIII, M. Decembris, A. MDCCCXLVIII. H.L. Q.S. publice defendet 
Auctor. Vratislavie, 1848. 

27 Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, Vol. VIII, 
1848, p. 148. 7 

228V ol. II, pp. 2—456. 

229 Verhandlungen des naturhistorischen vereines der preussishen Rheinlande, V. 
Jabrg., 1848, pp. 113, 126. 

230 Preisschrift. Abhandlung, eingesandt als Antwort auf die Preisfrage: * 
ob die Steinkohlenlager aus Pflanzen entstanden sind, etc. Eine mit dem doppelten 
Preise gekrénte Schrift. Haarlem, 1848, 4°, 300 S, 23 Taf., forming the 4¢ Deel, 
Tweede versameling, Verhandl. Holl. Maatschappen. 

231 Victor Raulin. Sur les transformations de la flore de l’Europe centrale pendant 
la période tertiaire. Annales des sciences naturelles de Paris, 3° série, Botanique, 
Tome X, 1848, p. 193. 

232 Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. II, Vol I, 1848, p. 376; Proc. Linn. 
Soc. I, 1849, p. 344; Trans. Linn. Soc., Vol. XX, Pt. I, 1851, p. 469, Pl. XXIII, XXIV, 
Cf. Comtes rendus des séances de l’Academie des sciences, Tome 67, 1868, pp. 421426. 

23J, Sauveur. Végétaux fossiles des terrain houillers de la Belgique, Académie 
royale des sciences, des lettres, et des beaux-arts de Belgique, Tome XXII, 1848. 

24Tablean des genres de végétaux fossiles consideré sous le point de vue de leur 
classification botanique et de leur distribution géologique. Paris, 1849, 8°. Diction- 
naire uniyersel d’histoire naturelle. 

* * 


distribution of the extinct genera and species of fossil plants are here 
systematically set forth and superbly illustrated. A memoir on the 
same subject? appeared in the “ Annales des sciences naturelles” for the 
same year, in a manner summarizing his views and giving lists of fossil 
plants belonging to each horizon. In seeking to avoid all duplications 
that result from giving different names to different parts of the same 
plant, his enumeration is reduced to very modest proportions and 
falls inside of 1,600 species, while, by treating Giningen and Parschlug 
as Pliocene instead of Miocene, he greatly exaggerates the importance 
of the former horizon at the expense of the latter. But the era of 
Miocene exploration had only just begun, and that formation did not 
give evidence of its present overshadowing supremacy until the labors 
of Heer and Ettingshausen began to reveal its true character. 

Pattison’s “Chapters on Fossil Botany”? is a very superficial at- 
tempt to treat the subject in a popular way, and its only value is a table 
of British fossil plants, which, if it could be depended upon, would show 
the number then known to amount to 529, of which 279 were from the 
coal measures, 120 from the Tertiary, and 89 from the Oolite. 

A large number of works and memoirs on vegetable paleontology 
appeared in 1850, perhaps exceeding that of any previous year. Most 
of these, however, were of modest pretensions, and only two can prop- 
erly be classed among great works on the subject. These were Unger’s 
“Genera et species plantarum fossilium”*’ and Gdéppert’s “Mono- 
graphie der fossilen Coniferen. ”?* 

As Unger had in 1845 published, in his “‘ Synopsis,” the first complete 
catalogue of fossil plants, so he was the first, in 1850, to publish a com- 
plete manual on the subject, for such is the nature of his ‘Genera et 
species.” This work is a shapely octavo volume of 668 pages, written 
wholly in Latin, and describing in systematic order every species of 
fossil plant known to the author. The total number thus described 
is 2,421, a large advance upon any previous estimate. Among the 
good features of the work are an enumeration of the genera under 
their proper orders and classes in a table that precedes the descriptive 
part, the reproduction, brought down to date, of his previously pub- 
lished “ Literatura nostri evi,” and a thorough species index at the 
end, distinguishing synonyms by printing them in italics. In his classi- 
“ fication he follows the natural order of development, beginning with 
the lowest forms. He declines to follow the English authorities in 

#35 Exposition chronologique des périodes de végétation et des flores diverses qui se 
sont succédé a la surface de la terre. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., 3° sér., Tome XI, 1849, 
pp. 285-338. 

2368. R. Pattison. Chapters on Fossil Botany. London, 1849, 12mo. 

*%7Franz Unger. Genera et species plantarum fossilium. Sumptibus Academia 
Casarcve scientiarum. Vindobone, 1850. 

8H. R. Géppert. Monographie der fossilen Coniferen. Eine im Jahre 1849, 
mit der goldenen Medaille und einer Premie von 150 Gulden gekronte Preisschrift. 
Leiden, 1850. Naturkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der 
Wetenschappen te Haarlem. Tweede Verzameling, 6° Deel. Leiden, 1850. 


treating Stigmaria as a dicotyledonous plant. He places the “Cy- 
cadeacew” between the Cryptogams and the Monocotyledons, but 
Strangely separates them from the Conifer and Gnetacex, which he 
makes to follow the palms and precéde the forms now referred to the 
apetalous division ; though he does not recognize by special names the 
divisions of the Dicotyledons established by Jussieu. Still, in arrang- 
ing the orders, he follows the system of A. L. de J ussieu, and not 
that of Adrien de Jussieu. No illustrations accompany this work. 

Iu Géppert’s “ Monographie der fossilen Coniferen” we have another 
of those exhaustive works upon difficult subjects which characterize 
this author. When we say that it forms a quarto volume of 359 pages, 
with 58 plates, half of which are devoted to the illustration of internal 
structure as revealed by microscopic examination, we have given buta 
rude idea of the work. The first 67 pages relate entirely to living 
Conifers and fitly prepare the way for a thorough treatment of the 
fossil forms. To the treatise on fossil Conifers is prefixed an historical 
introduction of nearly a hundred pages, in which, as in the historical 
introduction to his “Systema filicum fossilium,” he marshals the litera- 
ture with great effect, and, as in the former case he found it impossible 
to confine himself to fern life, so in the present case he makes it the oc- 
casion for a thorough study of the history of man’s acquaintance not 
merely with coniferous fossil wood, but with fossil wood in general, 
which for ages remained the only known torm of vegetable petrifaction. 

Besides the systematic description of all coniferous fossils known to 
him, the work contains a most valuable enumeration of localities where 
fossil wood, beds of coal, and fossil plants in general had been found 
from the year 1821 to the end of 1849, arranged primarily according to 
their position in the geological system. It also contains an arrange- 
ment of the species of Coniferz according to geological horizons. 

The remainder of the numerous productions of the year 1850 must be 
passed over in silence, as their bare enumeration would consume con- 
siderable space, and without glancing at their special merits would add 
little to the reader’s knowledge respecting them. As has already been 
stated (supra, p. 379, 380) it was in 1850 that both Massalongo and Baron 
von Ettingshausen began their work in the domain of fossil plants, so 
that at this date no less than fourteen of those who have been men- 
tioned as leaders of the science were living and actively engaged in ex- 
tending its boundaries. 

We have thus passed in review the literature of fossil plants from 
the earliest records down to the close of the first half of the nineteenth 
century. The plan was, and still is, to continue this survey down to 
the present time, though confining attention more and more, as the 
literature increases in volume, to the most important works. But for 
the present purpose the carrying out of this plan is manifestly impos- 
sible from considerations of both space and of time, and it must be 
postponed until the work to which it was intended as an introduction 


shall have been completed. This is specially to be regretted, as so 
little had been done down to 1850 to develop the paleobotanical resources 
of America. It is algo true that at that date little had been done beyond 
the collection and accumulation of data for study. From the time when 
the practice of discussing imaginary problems without any data fell into 
disrepute the opposite and far more healthful tendency to treat facts as 
the end of research chiefly prevailed, until at length, at the time when 
we are compelled to close our record, a sufficiently large body of facts 
had been brought to light, and, through the organizing power of Unger, 
Brongniart, and Géppert, had been arranged for study and comparison, 
to render it somewhat profitable to speculate upon their probable 

In the decade that followed some such speculation was indulged in 
very cautiously, but this always resulted in the clearer recognition of 
the need of still more facts, and undoubtedly tended strongly to stimu- 
late research. Then commenced that systematic attack along the 
whole line of paleobotanical investigation. Ettingshausen’s system of 
nervation for the determination of dicotyledonous leaves may be re- 
garded as the result of the pressure, then irresistible, for the means of 
identifying the now vast accumulations of this important class of fos- 
sils. Heer’s researches into the fossil floras of Switzerland and of the 
arctic regions, and Lesquereux and Newhberry’s investigations into the 
Dakota, Laramie, and Green River groups of the Western United 
States, together with Saporta’s ‘‘ Etudes” in the south of France, fur- 
nished more data than that of all the collections previously made from 
the later formations. 

The work of exploration still goes on. Saporta has elaborated the 
Jurassic of France, Grand’ Eury and Renault have thoroughly studied 
the Carboniferous of that country, as have Williamson and Carruthers 
that of England. Nathorst has opened up the subterranean floral treas- 
ures of Sweden, and Dawson those of British America, while Engelhardt, 
Hosius, Van der Marck, and Schenck have continued to investigate, 
without exhausting, the rich plant-beds of Germany. In America ac- 
tivity has not diminished, notwithstanding the advanced age of both 
the principal cultivators of this science. Large works, which have re- 
quired years in preparation in the hands of both Lesquereux and New- 
berry, are either on the eve of publication or are far advanced toward 
completion. Professor Fontaine, of the University of Virginia, has an 
important work on the Rhetic flora of Virginia in press, and is collect- 
ing some most interesting material for a second from the lower Creta- 
ceous or upper Jurassic of the same State. Large collections have 
lately been made by different parties of the United States Geological 
Survey, which are now in hand for examination, while fresh material 
is daily arriving at the National Museum from all parts of the country. 

Between eight and nine thousand species (as species are made) of 
fossil plants are now known to science, and the time must be near at 


hand, if it has not already come, when this wide acquaintance with the 
ancient floras of the globe, if properly organized for study, will afford 
such aid to geological investigation as to command recognition, while 

the lessons which it supplies to the botanist and the biologist will be 


Science does not consist in names, but it cannot well progress without 
them, and early in the history of every science a system of nomenclature 
always arises. Agaiu, a knowledge of natural objects consists largely 
in a knowledge of their relations, to obtain which systematic attempts 
at their methodical arrangement are among the first steps. However 
humble such efforts may at first be, they nevertheless constitute the 
beginnings of scientific classification. The objects may be arranged 
before names are given to them or to the groups they are seen to form, 
as in Bernard de Jussieu’s Garden of the Trianon. But usually the 
naming either precedes or closely accompanies the process of arrange- 
ment. Such at least has been the case with fossil plants. This fact, 
however, is to be here considered: That the science of botany proper 
antedated by far that of paleobotany. A few names were given to 
vegetable remains during the period when nobody believed that they 
either were themselves plants or represented plants. The reaction 
from this view, which took place at the beginning of the eighteenth 
century, in favor of the diluvian theory, carried its votaries much too 
far, and led them to think that every fossil plant must represent 
some known living one. This extremism had its fitting exemplifica- 
tion in Scheuchzer’s now obviously ridiculous attempt to classify the 
fossil plants of his time under the same rubrics as the living plants. 
The timely appearance of Tournefort’s “Elémens de Botanique,” in 
1694, in which about the first real system of botanical classification 
was drawn up, afforded Scheuchzer the desired opportunity, and with- 
out waiting for the appearance of a second edition of his ‘“ Herbarium 
diluvianum,” he hastened to arrange all his species under Tournefort’s 
twenty-one classes, and published them, in 1816, in his “Oryctographia 
Helvetix” (pp. 203-247). In spite of his zeal, however, a large residue 
of unassigned fossil plants remained as a special “ Class unkantlicher 
Gewiichsen oder dero Theilen, welche uns von der Siindfluth ubrigge- 
blieben” (p. 236). This attempt was continued in the Hditia novissima 
of the “Herbarium diluvianum,” published in 1723 (Appendix). 

In this rash scheme Scheuchzer was not followed. Lhwyd, in 1699, 
had applied the term Lithoxylon to fossil wood, which, with the ex- 
ception of the impressions described by Major, mentioned on p. 389 
(supra), was the only form of vegetable fossil known down to his time. 


Volkmann (1720) adopts this term, and also Lithophyllon, while to all 
impressions of leaves and fronds he gives the general name of Litho- 
phytes, but he goes a long way in the direction of Scheuchzer in accept- 
ing the indigenous theory (supra, p. 395). Schultze (1755) treats the whole 
subject of plant impressions from a strictly mineralogical point of view, 
designating his figures by the old indigenous names of Scheuchzer and 
Volkmann; but the three general classes of petrifactions which he de- 
scribes without naming are of interest, as showing that he possessed a 
firm and rational grasp of the phenomena. They are: (1) Whole trees, 
large trunks, thick roots, and other similar woody matters transformed 
into stone; (2) impressions of twigs, leaves, flowers, etc., which consist 
either in whole or in part of the remains of the originals in a petrified 
state; (3) impressions of stems, plants, and shrubs in which no trace 
of their former parts is perceptible. 

Walch (1769) was the first to offer anything like a nomenclature of 
fossil plants, and although most of his names have now disappeared 
from the text-books, they still served a useful purpose during a long 
embryonic period in the history of the science. He called petrified 
trunks by the terms Lithodendron and Dendrolithus ; pieces of petrified 
wood Lithoxylon, and also Stelechites ; petrified roots, Rhizolithus. If 
the fossil remains bore a sufficient resemblance to any living tree or 
plant, it was called by the name of that plant, with its terminal sylla- 
ble changed into ites, as Daphnites, Sandalites, etc., a method which is 
still extensively employed in the creation of fossil genera of plants. 
Herbaceous plants were called Phytolithi, but he distinguished mere 
impressions of ‘these as Phytotypolithi. Fossil leaves were Lithobiblia, 
Bibliolithi, or Lithophylla. Phytobiblia referred to the leaves of herbs 
as opposed to those of trees. He mistook the Calamite for great reeds, 
and applied to them this name, as also that of Lithocalmi, the first of 
which has come down to us notwithstanding the misnomer. Fossil 
fruits he denominated Carpolithi, which is another term that has sur- 
vived in the long struggle for existence. 

Parkinson (1804) contented himself by giying a simple classification 
in English, although he refers to the Latin names which had been 
given to his groups by previous authors. His terminology was, (1) 
fossil trees ; (2) fossil plants; (3) fossil roots; (4) fossil stalks ; (5) fossil 
leaves ; (6) fossil fruits and seed-vessels. 

Steinhauer (1818) made four classes: Fossil wood (Lithoxylon), fossil 
fruits (Lithocarpt), fossil leaves (Lithophylli [sic]), and fossil flowers, of 
whose existence he seemed doubtful. He describes ten species, all of 
which he classes under the one genus, Phytolithus. Considering the mea- 
gerness of this presentation it is somewhat surprising that Steinhauer 
should have actually been the first to apply specific names to fossil 
plants, and thus to bring them fairly within the circle of natural his- 
tory sciences. It had thus taken more than a century to complete the 
cycle from the attempt of Scheuchzer to apply Tournefort’s classifica- 


tion to fossil plants, through the “ indigenous” and “exotic” stages 
incident to the diluvian theory and back to this humble beginning ona 
true scientific basis as a systematic: science, and it is properly from the 
appearance of this unpretentious memoir in an American scientific serial 
that paleobotany as a systematic branch of natural history should date 
(supra, p. 403). 

Baron von Schlotheim, in his “ Flora der Vorwelt” (1804), had made 
no attempt to assign names to the forms he so admirably figured, but 
confines himself to questioning and criticising the “indigenous” and 
“exotic” names which they had received from the early authors. “If 
the author had established a nomenclature for the plants which he de- 
scribed,” said Brongniart, *‘ his work would have become the basis of all 
the works which have since been produced on the same subject.” But 
it was scarcely too late for him still to acquire this honor, for between 
this first work and the appearance of his “ Petrefactenkunde” (1820) no 
important treatise on fossil plants other than Steinhauer’s memoir was 
published, and in this second work, which, as we have already seen, so 
far, at least, as the treatment of vegetable remains was concerned, was 
merely the continuation of the first which had been interrupted by 
political troubles, a systematic nomenclature was adopted and carried 
out in detail (supra, p. 404). He styled the entire vegetable kingdom 
sofar as fossils are concerned, P hytolithes, without, however, employing 
as Steinhauer had done, the term Phytolithus as a genus. Out of it he 
carves five classes, though he does not sodenominate them. Under two 
of these larger divisions fall subordinate ones which may be called orders 
the other three remaining undivided with an ordinal and even generic 
rank of theirown. The following is the outline of Schlotheim’s system: 

I. Dendrolithes.?” 

A. Lithoxylithes. 
B. Lithanthracites. 
C. Bibliolithes. 

II. Botanilithes. 

II. Phytotypolithes. 
a.) Palmacites. 
b.) Casuarinites. 
ec.) Calamites. 
d.) Filicites. 
e.) Lycopodiolithes. 
J.) Poacites. 

IV. Carpolithes. 

V. Anthotypolithes. 

Under his Dendrolithes and Botanilithes no species are introduced, 
but certain forms are described, compared, and discussed. Especially 

239 Prodrome, p. 3. 
0 The anglicized forms are here employed as Schlotheim employed the German 

forms: Dendrolithen, Lithoxylithen, etc. 


interesting are his notes on the Bibliolithes in which most of the dico- 
tyledonous leaves, then known, are referred to. Of Palmacites he 
describes fifteen species under regular systematic names. Of Casuari- 
nites he gives five species ; of Calamites, ten; of Filicites, twenty-three ; 
of Lycopodiolithes, five ; of Poacites, four; of Carpolithes, fifteen, and of 
Anthotypolithes, one. The science of paleobotany could therefore start 
from this date with seventy-eight species described and figured. 

Count Sternberg, in his “ Flora der Vorwelt,” established a large num- 
ber of genera, which he founded upon the most thorough investigation, 
a large share of which have resisted the destructive agencies of subse- 
quent research. Among these were Lepidodendron, Flabellaria, Annula- 
ria, Neggerathia,and Sphenopteris. His determinations were modest and 
sound, and he was able only in a few cases to refer the fossil forms to 
living genera, as in Osmunda, Asplenium, etc. But the most impor- 
tant departure effected in this work was in establishing vegetable 
paleontology for the first time upon a geognostic basis. He assumed 
three periods of vegetation : (1) an insular period characterized by the 
great coal plants; (2)a period characterized by the predominance of 
cycadean types, and (3) a period introduced by fucoidal remains and char- 
acterized by dicotyledonous forms. it will be at once perceived that 
these three periods correspond substantially with the Paleozoic, Meso- 
zoic, and Cenozoic ages of modern geology. 

Passing over the system of Martius, published in 1822,%! which, 
though having merits, has been received with less favor, we now come 
to that of Brongniart, the first draft of which also appeared in 1822.7 
In this memoir all fossil plants were divided into four classes, ex- 
pressly so-called, viz., (1) stems whose internal organization is recog- 
nizable; (2) stems whose internal structure is not recognizable, but 
which are characterized by their external form; (3) stems joined to 
leaves or leaves only; (4) organs of fructification. The first class is 
divided into Eaxogenites and Endogenites, having the rank of genera. 
Under the second class, besides Calamites of Schlotheim, Syringoden- 
dron of Sternberg, and other genera, there occur for the first time the 
genera Sigillaria and Stigmaria. Sternberg’s Lepidodendron is divided 
into Sigillaria and Sagenaria, to the latter of which Sternberg’s name, 
Lepidodendron, is now generally preferred. Stigmaria is the equiva- 
lent of Sternberg’s Variolaria. Under the third class Lycopodites is 
substituted for Schlotheim’s Lycopodiolithes, Asterophyllites tor his 
Casuarinites, and Phyllites for his Bibliolithes. Schlotheim’s Filicites 
and Poacites are adhered to and the new genera, Sphenophyllites and 
Ficoides, are established. Under the fourth class Schlotheim’s two 
genera, Carpolithes and Antholithes, are retained. 

*1C. F. Martius. De plantis nonnullis antediluvianis ope spec#rum inter tropicos 
viventium illustrandis. Denkschr. der kénigl. baierisch. botan. Gesellsch. in Regens- 
burg, Band II, 1822, pp. 121-147, Pl. I and II. 

° Mémoires du Muséum Whistoire naturelle, Paris, Tome VIII, 1822, pp. 209-210. 


Without further discussing here the beautifully illustrated work of 
Artis (supra, p. 406) who attempted, for.the most part unsuccessfully, to 
create several new genera, we may now profitably compare the method 
just reviewed with the one put forth six years later by the same author 
in his “Prodrome.” On page 9 of that work he gives the key to his 
new classification in the following words: “La méthode que nous avons 
adoptée pour classer et dénominer ces fossiles, est fondée également 
sur ces rapprochements plus on moins intimes entre les plantes fossiles 
et les plantes vivantes.” Laying aside the former method, based chiefly 
upon the nature of the fossil, i. ¢., the part of the plant which hap- 
pened to be preserved, he now makes bold to assign all these forms 
to some of the great natural divisions of the vegetable kingdom as es- 
tablished by the Jussieus and other botanists. Butas already remarked 
(supra, p. 406), geognostic considerations and a firm faith in the laws of 
development led him to suggest some important modifications in this 
so-called natural method, as may be seen by comparing the following 
scheme from page 11 of the “Prodrome” and from page 20 of the 
“ Histoire des végétaux fossiles”: 

I. Agams. 
II. Cellular Cryptogams. 
III. Vascular Cryptogams. 
IV. Gymnospermous Phanerogams. 
V. Monocotyledonous angiospermous Phanerogams. 
VI. Dicotyledonous angiospermous Phanerogams. 

In the present state of botanical science Brongniart’s Agams would 
probably all be relegated to his second group, or Cellular Cryptogams, 
but in other respects. this classification is pre-eminently sound, and seems 
likely to be vindicated by the future progress of the science as against 
some of the recent systems emanating from the highest authorities. 

To these few general groups Brongniart proceeded to refer the fossil 
forms either as new and avowedly extinct genera, or, wherever possible, 
as extinct species of living genera. This was carried entirely through 
the system in his ‘‘ Prodrome,” and, so far as it went, the “ Histoire” 
afforded ample justification for his determinations in the form of full 
descriptions and thorough illustrations. This latter work was in a man- 
ner completed by his “Tableau” “ in 1849. The method of Brongniart 
has, with few exceptions, been adopted by subsequent paleobotanists, 
Une of these exceptions, however, is too important to be passed over. 
although it has already been considered in certain of its bearings. This 
is the system of Lindley and Hutton. These authors, apparently in 
order to emphasize their dissent from the theory of development, re- 
versed the order, placing the most highly developed forms first. They 
also placed the Conifer and Cycadez in the subclass Exogene, or 

43 Tableau des genres de végétaux fos-iles considéré sous le point de vue de leur 
classification botanique et de leur distribution géologique. Paris, 1849. (Dictionnaire 
universel d’histoire naturelle. 


Dicotyledons, without intimating that they differ in any essential re- 
spect from oaks or elms. 
The followin g is their system in outline: 


Subclass 1. ExoGENz, or DICOTYLEDONS. 




Flowering plants which cannot be with certainty referred to either 
the monocotyledonous or the dicotyledonous classes. 








Plants the affinity of which is altogether uncertain. 

Stigmaria is put in the Euphorbiacee, Sphenophyllum in the Conifer, 
Annularia and Asterophyllites in the Dicotyledons, Neggerathia in the 
Palme, while Sigillaria and Voikmannia are classed with the last, or 
wholly uncertain group. 

With the rapid increase of material for the study of fossil plants the 
possibility of referring them to living families and genera has increased 


until at the present time nearly all the remains of the former vegeta- 
tion of the globe are readily assigned to their proper place in the gen- 
eral system adopted by botanists. Within a few years the number of 
dicotyledonous species has become so large that the attempt to identify 
them has been eminently successful. By the aid of a set of rules de- 
duced from the prolonged study of the nervation of leaves the genera 
of fossil Dicotyledons have been in great part made known. The only 
prominent question which this increased knowledge has raised in the 
department of classification has been with reference to the order in 
which the divisions of Jussieu should stand. It is, however, now gen- 
erally admitted that the order in which these three divisions of plants 
appeared was that of Adrien de Jussieu and not that of A. L. de J us- 
sieu,” the Gamopetala constituting the most recent group of plants 
developed upon the globe. M. Schimper, while adhering to the old 
method in this respect for his systematic arrangement of the families, 
has nevertheless clearly shown that this does not represent the order 
of nature, and in his review of these groups“ he has arranged them 
according to the natural method. : 

It is thus that after two centuries of floundering in turbid waters the 
science of paleobotany has at last found itself in condition to take its 
proper place as a department of botany—the botany of the ancient 
world—in which, whatever geology may gain from it, it must rest upon 
geology as its solid foundation. 


The aid that the study of fossil plants affords in arriving at a natural 
classification of living plants is of prime importance, because it sup- 
plies at first hand the chief object for which all classification legiti- 
mately exists, viz., a knowledge of how existing forms came into being 
and why they are what they are. 

Much as we may delight in the discovery of new and beautiful forms, 
and may admire the objects in our possession as products of nature and 
pets of our specialties, we must, as investigators of nature, feel a higher 
interest in the great problems of their origin and development, whose 
solution in strictly scientific ways constitutes the proper aim of science 

The method by which these problems can be most successfully attacked 
is the method of classification. Notwithstanding the contempt into which 
mere ‘‘systematists” have latterly fallen, the true scientific method is 
still and must ever be the systematic method. The real cause for the 
present disdain of systematists, lies in the mistaken spirit in which 

“Adrien de Jussieu. Cours élémentaire d’histoire naturelle. Botanique. Paris, 

1840, p. 395. 
46 Traité de Pal. vég., Tome I, pp. 83-87 


system-making has been so commonly conducted. Systems of classifi- 
cation had come to be regarded as the end of science, when they are at 
best only the means. But it is not to be wondered at that this was so, 
since it was not until quite recently that science could be fairly said to 
have any end other than to collect facts and build systems. Not until 
the laws of genetic dependence among the forms of organized life, as 
taught by Lamarck in 1809 and enforced by Darwin in 1859, had begun 
to be recognized within the last twenty years, was any such grand re- 
sult thought possible as that of ever finding out how existing forms 
have come to be what they are. With the growth of this conception 
all attempts at classification gradually became revolutionized in their 
spirit and aim, and from being merely logical and ideal they tended to 
become practical and real. Whereas formerly some collected facts for 
the sake of facts, and others built systems for the sake of systems, now 
all collect facts for the sake of systematizing them and systematize them 
in order to learn what they teach; for neither without facts nor with- 
out system can we ever arrive at truth. 

It is customary with botanists to speak of artificial systems of classifi- 
cation as contrasted with the natural system. It is commonly supposed 
that the system of Linnzus was wholly artifical, and the impression 
equally prevails that that of Jussieu was the true natural one. Butin 
the progress of human discovery no such sudden leap ever takes place. 
The truth is that all systems have aimed to be natural and that none 
have wholly succeeded. But there has been progress in the concep- 
tion of what constitutes a natural system. The most that the older bot- 
anists aimed to secure was a logical system, and it was supposed that 
the logical necessarily represented the natural. 



The vegetation of the globe has always been divided into certain ob- 
vious groups which may be called types, the word “type” being here 
used in a very general and indefinite way. These types of vegetation 
have various systematic values. The following table contains the prin- 
cipal ones, with a brief explanation accompanying each: 

Synoptical View of the Types. 

CrYPTOGAMS.—Flowerless plants. 
Cellular Cryptogams.—Devoid of vessels or vascular bundles; e. g., 
sea-weeds, mosses. 
Vascular Cryptogams.—Having vascular bundles—fibers, ducts, ete. 
Ehizocarpee.—Inconspicuous plants, of interest chiefly as ap- 
pearing to form the transition from the Cryptogams to the 
Phenogams through the Cycadacee; e. g-, Marsilia, Sal- 
vinia, Azolla. 


CRYPTOGAMS.—Flowerless plants—Continued. 

Equisetinew.—Rush like plants, with whorls of leafless branches; 
é. g., Calamites, scouring rushes. 

LIycopodinee.—Plants with scaly stems or trunks; e. g., Lepi- 
dodendron, club-mosses. 

Ligulatce.—Inconspicuous plants, of interest chiefly as appear- 
ing to form the transition from the Cryptogams to the Phe- 
nogams through the Coniferx; e. g., Isoetes. 

PHAZNOGAMS.—Flowering plants. 
Gymnosperms.—Plants having their ovaries open and the ovules 
and seeds naked or exposed. 

Cycadacew.—Trees midway in general aspect between tree:ferns 
and palms; ¢.g., sago palm. 

Conifere.—The pine family ; ¢. g., pine, fir, cedar, yew, etc. 

Gnetacee.—A small family of leafless plants, interesting chiefly 
as appearing to form the transition from the Equiselines: 
to the Dicotyledons, through the Casuarine; e.g., Ephedra 
antisy philitica. 

ANGIOSPERMS.—Plants having their ovules and seeds protected by 
closed ovaries. 
Monocotyledons.—Plants that come up with a single blade, or coty- 
ledon; stems endogengus; e. g., grass, lily, palm. 
Dicotyledons.—Plants that come up with two leaves, or cotyledons; 
stems exogenous. 

Apetale or Monochlamydee.—Plants having but one floral en- 
velope (a calyx but no corolla); ¢. g., oak, willow. 

Polypetale.—Plants having two floral envelopes (a calyx and a 
corolla), the corolla consisting of separate petals ; ¢. g., rose, 
magnolia, maple. 

Gamopetale or Monopetale.—Plants having two floral envel- 
opes, the corolla consisting of a single piece, or petal; e¢. 
g., honeysuckle, catalpa, trumpet-flower. 

The names contained in this table are the modern ones, and other 
terms with, perhaps, about the same meaning will be found in the sys- 
tems of classification of the older botanists, while in some such systems 
quite different groups are recognized as primary. 


The history of the progress made by botanists proper, without the aid 
of paleontology, in the direction of the natural method, did space per- 
mit, would well repay examination. I shall confine myself to presenting 
the three principal systems in a much-abridged form, as perhaps the 
most satisfactory way in which that progress can be indicated. The 
systems to which I refer are those, respectively, of Linnaus, of A. L. 
de Jussieu and of Adrien de Jussieu. The first of these, the system of 
Linnzeus, is introduced merely to show that it is not altogether an arti- 

GEOL 84——28 


ficial one, but, like all the rest, an effort at real classification. More 
clearly to indicate this I have arranged it in logical form, and, for brev- 
ity’s sake, have introduced a number of non-Linnzan terms: 

The Linnean system. ; 
Cryptogamia ....2. 02222. eee ee cece cee eee cere teen cee ee cere eee ee Cryptogamia. 
(Gynandria ... ..--.--. 2 -- esse eeeeee----- Gynandria. 

DiGlinde: sos caw cccus ec eenawe saree es wines Gane ERR Seca tees 

(Anisan-§ Tetradynamia. 
dria. Shee 
Pheno- Teoundries 
Bamiae Dodecandria. 
Hermaphrodite { Eleutherogynia Decandria. 
Eleutheran- Octandria. 
dria. Isandria< Heptandria. 
{ L | Monandria. 

Desmandria --..-.-.--- 

L L 

All who are familiar with the Linnean system will, of course, ob- 
serve that the order is here inverted. The names of the successively 
larger groups, with theexception of the terms “ Cryptogamia” and “ Phe- 
nogamia,” are merely invented to obviate the necessity of describing 
those groups. This form of presentation clearly shows to how large an 
extent Linnzus aimed at a logical classification. 


We will next glance at the systems of the Jussieus. Bernard de 
Jussieu has merely left us his catalogue of the garden of Trianon, 
but this enigmatic list of names is regarded by modern botanists as 
containing the germ of all later systems. Guided by it, his nephew, 
Antoine Laurent de Jussieu, proceeded to elaborate the celebrated Jus- 
sizean system, of which a mere outline is presented in the following table: 

System of A. L. de Jussieu. 



This system, as will be observed, rests primarily upon the number of 
cotyledons, and in making the Cryptogams co-ordinate with the Mono- 
cotyledons and the Dicotyledons fails to draw the great dividing line 
which Linneus clearly perceived between the Cryptogamic and the 
Phenogamic series. 



Tn re-elaborating it, his son, Adrien, adhered to this defect, but intro- 
duced some improvements. We will next glance at this latest form of 
the Jussizan system: 

System of Adrien de Jussieu. 

an Gymnosperms. 
Diclinw........... | Angiosperms. 
Dicotyledons ... Apetale. 
Hermaphrodite ... ? Polypetala. 

In this case we see a very great advance in the recognition of the 
Gymnosperms. In transposing the Polypetale and Monopetale# he 
also departed from the views of his father, and in this modern botanists 
have not followed him, although, as remarked above (p. 431), this 
change would undoubtedly be in the direction of a true natural system. 


From the systems of the Jussieus to that which prevails among bot- 
anists of the present day the transition is slight. Linneus’s Crypto- 
gamic and Phenogamic series are restored; the terms “ Exogens” and 
“ Endogens” are introduced as synonymous with *‘ Dicotyledons” and 
“ Monocotyledons,” of which they take precedence; the Gymnosperms 
are recognized, and A. L. de Jussieu’s order is restored for the Poly- 
petalz and Monopetale, for which latter name that of “ Gamopet- 
ale” is coming to be preferred, while for ‘‘ Apetale” the term Mono- 
chlamydee is substituted by some. The system, then, is substantially 
as follows: 

( Endogens, or Monocotyledons. 
Gymno- Cycadacee. 

Phenogams.¢ Exogens, or Gnetacee. 

Dicotyledons. : Apetale, or Monochlamydez. 
Angio- Monopetala, or Gamopetale. 
saree Polypetale. 

All modern text-books invert the order and begin with the Phzno- 
gams, but whether advisable or not this is intended merely to facilitate 
study, the higher forms being easier of comprehension, and does not at 
all imply that our leading botanists believe this to have been the order 
in which plants have developed. This inversion of the order, how- 
ever, shows how completely the notion of development is ignored in 
modern botany, and the system throughout rests upon the evidence 
furnished by the organs of the plants as they are understood. It is 
proper to say that at the present. time quite a large body of the most 
thorough students of vegetal embryology and histology, especially in 
Germany, have rejected much of this system, and especially that which 
concerns the Gymnosperms. These they prove in the most satisfactory 


manner to constitute a lower type than any other of the Phenogams, 
and they conclude that they form a more or less natural transition from 
the Cryptogams to the Phenogams, between which they place them. 
This result is most gratifying to the paleontologist, fur nearly or quite 
every work on fossil plants gives the Gymnosperms this position at the 
base of the Phenogamic series, so sagaciously assigned to it by Brong- 
niart. Paleobotanists have been compelled to do this in the face of 
the prevailing botanical systems, because this is the position which they 
are found to occupy in the ascending strata of the earth’s crust. It is 
astonishing that botanists could have remained so indifferent to such a 
weighty fact, and it is certainly most instructive to find the geological 
record, so long unheeded, confirmed at last by the facts revealed in 
living plants. There is no evidence that those who have thus confirmed 
it were in the least influenced by it, and Sachs is as silent as to paleon- 
tology as is Bentham or Gray. 

The founders and perfectors of the prevailing system of botanical 
classification have not been influenced in any marked degree by the idea 
of development in vegetable life. Few of the earlier ones had ever 
heard of development, and those who had heard of it rejected it as a 
visionary theory. This system had become established long before the 
doctrine of the fixity of species had received a shock, for although La- 
marck, himself a botanist, had sown the seed of its ultimate overthrow, 
still it required half a century for this seed to germinate, and it was 
during this half century that the Jussizan system was supplanting the 
Linnean and gaining a firm foothold. 

It is our special task to examine this system by the light of the now 
universally accepted laws of development and to see in how far it con- 
forms to those laws. We shall see that, with a few important excep- 
tions and some unimportant ones, this purely logical classification is in 
substantial harmony with what we now believe to be the order de- 
manded by the law of descent—an encouraging fact as showing that 
natural truth may often be correctly discerned by purely rational pro- 
cesses. Had Jussieu been told that the Monocotyledons and Dicotyle- 
dons were the direct descendants of the Acotyledons he would probably 
have treated the proposition with contempt. In his system the latter 
were placed before the former merely because they represented a lower 
grade of organization, and it was the relative grades of organization 
that determined the position of the minor as well as of the major groups 
throughout the Jussizan system. 


Now, therefore, that we have been compelled, from an entirely differ- 
ent class of evidence, to accept the fact of descent, we are glad to find 
that this does not wholly revolutionize the system arrived at from con- 
siderations of structure alone, while at the same time we must claim 
that this substantial agreement furnishes a strong corroboration of the 
theory of descent. 


The following table may be taken to represent, so far as the tabular 
form will permit, the system of classification called for by the present 
known facts of structural botany and of paleontology. 

Assumed natural system. 

Gymnosperms. 2 Conifers. 
Phenogams. Monocotyledons. 
: Apetala. 
Angiosperms.. Dicotyledons. 2 Polypetale. 

A glance at this table will show that the most important respect in 
which it differs from the one last examined 1s in the position and rank 
of the Gymnosperms. Whereas there the Gymnosperms and Angio- 
sperms have only the rank of subclasses under the class Exogens, or 
Dicotyledons, they here assume the rank of classes, and the Monocotyle- 
dons and Dicotyledons are reduced to subclasses under the class An- 
giosperms. The Gymnosperms are thus taken out of the Dicotyledons 
entirely. This is done because the distinction of open and closed ovaries 
is regarded as a class distinction, and the Monocotyledons are as truly 
Angiosperms as are the Dicotyledons, since they possess the closed ovary; 
because the Gymnosperms are not dicotyledonous, the number of cotyle- 
dons varying from one to fifteen ; and because, while all Gymnosperms 
are not strictly exogenous nor all Monocotyledons strietly endogenous, 
the woody structure of the Conifere differs fundamentally from that of 
all dicotyledonous plants. Buta discussion of these points would carry 
us too far. 

It will also be perceived that the order proposed by Adrien de Jus- 
sieu for the divisions of the Dicotyledons is here adopted, the reasons 
for which have already been referred to and will receive more special 
attention hereafter. 


Thus far we have considered the Cryptogams as an undivided group 
of plants; but they too are capable of subdivision. The classification 
of the Cryptogams, however, is still in its infantile stage and is the 
problem which is at this moment most earnestly claiming the attention 
of advanced botanists. The subject is too special to be entered into 
here, and I shall confine myself to naming a few of the groups which 
modern investigation has shown to throw. some light upon the more 
general problem of descent in plant life. 

That the first proper plants were cellular Cryptogams there is no 
question, and to that class still belong a great number and variety of 
forms, the seaweeds, fresh-water alge, fungi, lichens, liverworts, mosses, 
etc. From these have in all probability descended the vascular Crypto- 


gams, now chiefly represented by our ferns, club mosses, and scouring 
rushes. Leaving the cellular Cryptogams undivided, we will consider 
some of the groups of the vascular Cryptogams. The great preponder- 
ance of these forms of vegetal life throughout Paleozoic time renders 
this necessary, notwithstanding their insignificance at the present epoch. 

As in the present, so throughout the past, the vascular Cryptogams 
are prowinently divided into three great groups, which may be roughly 
designated asthe fern group, the Calamite group, and the Lepidodendron 
group. Ancient ferns differed from those with which we are acquainted 
in being nearly all arborescent, or tree-ferns. The great Calamites of 
the coal-measures are now represented solely by our genus Hquisetum, 
or scouring rush, while the Lepidodendron had degenerated into our 
little ground-pines and club-mosses (Lycopodium). 

A careful study of the fossil remains of the Calamites and lepido- 
dendroid growths of the Carboniferous period shows clearly that they 
were then much more closely related to each other than are the present 
Equisetaceze and Lycopodiacex, and there can be little doubt that 
strictly intermediate forms existed. We may therefore class them 
together under a larger general group, to which we will give the name 
Lepidophytes. There is also a suggestive resemblance between some of 
the tree-ferns and certain of the Calamites, so that far back in that 
hoary antiquity of vegetable life we find a certain homogeneity and 
monotony, which show that those plant-forms as we now understand 
them were to a large extent undifferentiated and blended together. 

Two small orders of cryptogamic vegetation, too rare to be frequent 
in a fossil state, and, indeed, unless formerly much more robust than 
now, too frail to admit of preservation except under the most favorable 
circumstances, possess for the modern cryptogamic systematist an extra- 
ordinary interest. These are the Rhizocarpex, or pepperworts, now 
chiefly represented by Salvinia, Marsilia, and Azolla, and the Ligulate, 
to which belong only Isoetes, the quillworts, and Selaginella. The reason 
for this special interest lies in the fact that the plants of these two 
orders, alone of all Cryptogams, possess characters which seem to mark 
the transition from the cryptogamic mode of reproduction to that of the 
Gymnosperms. In this the Rhizocarpee are supposed to approach 
more closely to the Cycadacee, while the Ligulate simulate rather the 
Conifer. On account of this exceptional prominence of these two 
orders I give them a separate place in the following table of classifica- 
tion of the Cryptogams: 

Cellular Cryptogams. 

Filiciner...... ee (Ferns). 
Vascular Cryptogams. Equisetine. 
Lepidophytz.. 2 Lycopodines. 

By uniting this table with the one last examined a somewhat com- 


plete view of the classification warranted by the present knowledge of 
plant life may be gained. 


We will now attempt to marshal in as convenient a form as possible 
the principal facts which paleontology and modern botany afford, with 
a view to examining their bearings upon the problem of classification 
in general and upon those of descent and development in particular. 
In doing this we are compelled to depend upon the weight of evidence - 
furnished by the number of species alone, since it is impossible to take 
account of the relative predominance of species, however great and 
important the differences may be in this respect. The number of 
species really marks the degree of variety or multiplicity, which cer- 
tainly forms a rude index to the degree of abundance or prominence. 
Where a number of types are compared this difference in their degree 
of variety may fairly be assumed to apply to all alike, and the conclusions 
thus drawn will be measurably accnrate; and in general this multiplicity 
of varying forms under larger types may be taken in a manner to rep- 
resent the relative exuberance or luxuriance of the type, and thus 
roughly to indicate its relative predominance as a form of vegetation. 

In all attempts to argue from paleontology allowance must, of course, 
be made for the imperfection of the geological record, and in no de- 
partment is this imperfection greater than in that of plants. Yet it is 
certainly remarkable how large a portion of the earth’s surface has, 
at one epoch or another, presented the conditions which have proved 
favorable to the preservation of vegetable remains. Our surprise at 
this is heightened when we contemplate the present state of the globe 
upon which that condition seems scarcely to exist. We know that the 
great land areas of our continents are wholly incapable of preserving 
the leaves that annually fall upon them, and it is only in the quiet beds 
of rivers that have reached their base level, or in their deltas, or else 
in localities where tufa-laden spring water flows over vegetation, or 
lastly, in our great swamps, that such a result is possible. This last 
condition is believed to furnish the key to the solution of the problem 
of most of the ancient vegetable deposits, but the limits of this paper 
forbid me to enter into a discussion of this subject. 

The following table presents in a rough manner the history of the 
introduction of plant life upon the globe as revealed by the remains 
that have actually been discovered. It has been compiled from about 
25,000 species slips which have been the product of nearly two years’ 
labor in cataloguing the literature of Paleobotany. Although this work 
is by no means completed, still, it embraces nearly all the more recent 
and more important works on the subject, and hence cannot fall far short 
of affording a correct view of the present state of knowledge of the 
fossil flora of the globe. 


Number of species of each of the principal types of vegetation that have been found fossil in 
sible to ascertain; together with the percentage that 

Geological formations. Cellular. Rhi Tae 
hizocar- | Equiseti- | Lycopodi- : 
Ferns. per. nex. new. Ligulates. 
Num-| Per |Num-| Per |Num-| Per |Num-| Per |Num-| Per |Num-| Per 
ber. | cent.| ber. | cent.| ber. | cent.| ber. | cent.) ber. | cent.| ber. | cent. 
Present time ...--..----- 35,000 |23. 89 |3,000 | 2.05 | 100 | 0.07 30 | 0.02} 500] 0.84 | 400 | 0.27 
: Quaternary .-.....-- 27 | 33.3 Cd (el ees ees 2] 2.5 |... nw] eee e open een eeoeone 
3s Amber.... ...-- BT | Bee levees leereay 
‘i ; | Pliocene......--|.-----|.----- 3] 3. 
8 | E | Miocene - 168 |55 | 87 | 2 
3\3 Oligocene. . 17| 22). 17}| 2. 
© | & | Green River. 5| 2.2 8} 3. 
i 10.3 22) 3. 
2.5 7| 6 
; 3.9] 23) 6.9 I 
Z 6.5 73 | 20.6 
3 20.0 1 | 20.0 |. 
8 3.3 38 | 15.5 
2 0.5 7) 3.3 
BE Gatlteecrcirscca|emavnileceienc 10 | 27.8 
_ | O | Urgonian. ......|....--|.-.--- : 
3 | 3 
co be 
& | Keuper.........]..--.-|...--- 
# | Muschelkalk -.. 
& |BunterSandstein|......|...... 
| Permian ...........- 
¢ | Carboniferous. ...... 
‘a | Subcarboniferous . -. 
S |Devonian  .....-- 
© | Upper Silurian. . 
7 Lower Silurian 
Cambrian <cccesce<-| 2 10000 |oecwccjewscnc| cocwes [scecwelsnewea|oceses 


each geological formation, also the number existing at the present time as nearly as it is pos- 
each type forms of the total flora of each formation. 




Cycadacem.| Coniferm. | Gnetaces. arenes 
: Apetalx. | Polypetale. |Gamopetale. 

Num-| Per | Num-| Per | Num-| Per | Num-| Per | Num-| Per | Num-; Per | Num-| Per | Num- 
per. |cent.| ber. |cent.} ber. | cent.) ber. |cent.| ber. |cent.| ber. | cent.) ber. | cent.| ber. 

75 | 0.05 300 | 0. 24 40 | 0.03 |20, 000 /13. 65 |12, 000 | 8.19 |35, 000 ‘28, 89 40, 000 [27.31 |146, 445 


Lis 27 | 33.3 8| 9.9 7| 8&7 81 
3.0 5| 7.5 1/15 7 | 10.4 67 
9.2 32|326| 31/316] 10] 10.2 98 
8.9} 926 | 27.1 | 1,064 |) 35.0| 346 | 11.3] 3,046 
10.6 | 256] 83.1| °259]33.6| 70] 91] 772 
9.2] 85 | 87.1 73| 31.9} 20] 87] 229 
16.8| 162 | 23.6 | 221 | 321 59| 86 689 
pees eae 5.9| 57| 47.9] 39 | 32.8 5) 42! 19 
1] 03 9.9 9.0 
5| 14 5.1 5.1 
ya “OR , 2.9 
7] 3.3 2.4 2 
2) 5.5 5.5 d 
21 | 19.4 5.6 
6 | 15.4 5.1 
43 | 35.5 
17) 26.2] 17 | 26.2 |....-.-|.-.---[eneeee-[eee eee 
116 | 27.7 
26 | 20.5 
15 | 36.6 


Before entering upon a general survey of the development of plant life 
as shown in this merely numerical exhibit, it will be necessary to refer 
the reader to three diagrams (plates LVI, LVII, LVIII), which have 
been prepared with a view to rendering the principal facts embraced 
in the table more readily intelligible, and then to discuss each of the 
diagrams separately, keeping the numerical data constantly in view. 
For the execution of these diagrams I am indebted to Ensign Everett 
Hayden, United States Navy, on duty at the National Museum in the 
Department of Fossil Plants, who has not only plotted and drawn them, 
but has aided me greatly in selecting from among the many possible 
modes of graphic illustration the ones which, as I believe, most success- 
fully serve this purpose. 

In all the diagrams an effort is made, of course in an approximate 
and very rude manner, to indicate time-measures in terms of thickness 
of strata, this being, however imperfect, certainly the only standard 
attainable. Ina lecture delivered at the National Museum on Feb- 
ruary 24, 1883, on Plant Life of the Globe, past and present, enlarged 
diagrams having a similar object to those introduced here were. used 
for illustration. The data then obtainable for their preparation were 
very defective, and the time-measures were taken from Dana’s “ Man- 
ual of Geology.” Those who may remember them, from notes taken or 
otherwise, will observe that in this latter respect the accompanying dia- 
grams differ widely from the ones presented on that occasion. Upon 
investigation it appears that the views of geologists generally have 
changed materially since the appearance of the last edition of that 
work, and recent observations have tended to show that the thickness 
formerly assigned to Mesozoic, and especially to Tertiary, strata was 
much too small in proportion to that assigned to Paleozoic, and especi- 
ally to Silurian strata. After consultation upon this subject with the 
Hon. J. W. Powell, Director of the Survey, it was decided that nearly 
equal vertical space might be given to each of the following formations, 
or groups: 1, Cambrian; 2, Silurian; 3, Devonian; 4, Permo-Carboni- 
ferous ; 5, Jura-Trias ; 6, Cretaceous; 7, Eocene; 8, Mio-Pliocene. These 
have accordingly been taken as furnishing the scale of time equivalents, 
and all the diagrams have been drawn to this scale. 

The development of vegetable life through geologic time may be dis- 
cussed from three somewhat distinct points of view. We may, in the first 
place, consider each of the principal types of vegetation at each of the 
geologic periods in which it occurs solely with reference to its relative 
importance in the combined flora of that epoch. This is undoubtedly 
the most important point of view from which the subject can be contem 
plated, and has accordingly been considered first. It is clear that the 
data for this must consist, not in the actual number of species at each 
horizon, but in the proportion, or percentage, which this number 
forms of the total number found at such horizon. Diagram No. I is, 
therefore, based upon these percentages as given in the foregoing table. 


CORSE OAC eaves 
ee ee eee Rhizocarp. Equisec 
Filices and Lycopod Cycadaceae 
[ | & | | 
L Pliocene 
Z, Miocene 
ts | ASTI 
CRETACEOUS! ¢ somanian ||| 
Lv Gault 
6 Lt yan 
N licaa aera 
Sean Wealden 
L Coral | 
= | JURASSIC | Golite 
= poe 
| Keuper _ 
TRIASSIC | Muschelkalk 
Carboniferous \ 
Sub-carbomel ma = = 
= & ve Rae 
A 2 
(abe ses : a 
| Lower 

EH. del 


1S Del NE ANSTO) (eh AS 
Comferae and — 
Gnetaceae Apetalae Polypetalae Gamopetalae 

= - ~ 


Julius Bien & Co Lith 


In the second place, we can consider each type of vegetation by and 
in itself, with a view to determining the geological age in which it first 
made its appearance, the general nature of its progress through time, 
and the period of its maximum actual development as an element of the 
vegetation. Such a presentation, however, when based on the number 
of species actually found at each horizon, exhibits very great fluctua- 
tions, due to the irregularities in the record. These irregularities de- 
pend chiefly upon conditions quite independent of the real presence or 
abundance of the plants in any formation. These conditions are many, 
but the principal ones may be embraced under three heads: 1. The 
plants must have existed at the period in question. This is the legiti- 
mate assumption and alone gives value to the diagram. 2. The condi- 
tions for their preservation and then for their subsequent exposure must 
have occurred. Any one can see how exceedingly irregular must be 
these delicate conditions at different ages of the world. 3. The locaili- 
ties in which they are embedded must have been discovered and worked 
by the paleontologist. This is the great contingency which stands in 
the way of our acquaintance with any flora, but although doubtless 

‘ more potent than the one last named, it possesses the merit of possible 
removal through the industry of man. 

With all these detractions from its value this form of illustrating the 
geological record is nevertheless presented in Diagram No. II. 

In the third place, we may, by a legitimate exercise of the rational 
method of science, construct a scheme of illustration, based indeed upon 
these facts as indispensable landmarks, yet recognizing the law of uni- 
formity in natural processes that constitutes the primary postulate of 
science itself, which shall, to a large extent, eliminate the error of the 
defective record and present a rational and highly probable view of the 
true development. By asecond act of ratiocination the probable period 
of first appearance of each type of vegetation may be deduced from the 
fact as to the earliest point at which it has actually been discovered, 
and thus an approach far nearer, at least, to the true history of plants 

- than is possible by the last-named method may be made. Diagram No. 
III presents the subject from this third point of view. 

Discussion of Diagram No. I—In this diagram the Cryptogams are 
represented in buff tints and the Phanerogams in purple, with deeper 
shades for the successively higher types of each series. The diagram is 
based upon the assumption of the proportionate representation of types 
in the known floras of each age. Collectors of fossil plants never select. 
They take everything they find and make no attempt to find particular 
forms. If, therefore, the chances of preservation of different kinds of 
plants were equal the chances of finding any particular kind would de- 
pend upon its actual degree of abundance in the given flora. Con- 
versely, the degree to which any type of plants is represented in the 
collections made would be a fair measure of such abundance or of the 
relative prominence of the type in the flora of the given epoch. How- 


ever imperfectly such a flora was represented in the collections, this re- 
lation would theoretically hold, and thus the imperfection of the geolog- 
ical record would be eliminated so long as it was only contemplated 
from this relative stand-point. And although it is not true that all 
kinds of plants stand an equal chance of preservation, still the classi- 
fication of plants according to their adaptability to preservation is 
wholly different from their systematic botanical classification and trav- 
erses the latter in such a manner as rarely‘to coincide with its bound- 
ary lines or to exclude any entire group from the possibility of being rep- 
resented in the fossilstate. Nevertheless, such omissions, orat least very 
disproportionate representations, will occur and must be allowed for. 
The theory also fails where a flora is only very meagerly represented, 
and the smaller the representation the less applicable the principle. This 
accounts for certain great irregularities in the diagram, which are great- 
cst in the least adequately represented formations. Such defects will 
be readily rectified by the intelligent student of the diagram, and it was 
thought better to leave this to his judgment than to attempt to overcome 
the defects by an arbitrary reduction of irregularities. The numerical 
table will aid in making the proper allowance in each case by indicat 
ing, as the diagram cannot do, the poorly-represented horizons. Upon 
the whole this diagram may be regarded as trustworthy in intelligent 
hands and as fairly indicating all that is claimed for it.. 

That vegetable life should have preceded animal life is a fair deduction 
from all that we know of these two kingdoms of nature, and, not to 
speak of the much-disputed Hozoon Canadense of Canadian so-called 
Azoic rock, we at least have Oldhamia in the Cambrian, whose organic 
character is quite generally admitted. This and other facts give weight 
to the view that the dark carbonaceous substance found in the Lauren. 
tian has been the result of accumulated vegetable matter of marine ori- 
gin, but too frail in structure to admit of preservation in any other form. 
Graphite, too, which is a pure form of carbon, and thus almost demon- 
strates vegetable origin, is found below the Silurian. But, dismissing 
these speculations and admitting the somewhat doubtful vegetable : 
character of Oldhamia, we actually have organized plants, marine alge, 
preserved in the Lower Silurian and even at its base. Such are Bilo- 
bites rugosa, Chondrites antiquus, and Sphaerococcites Scharyanus. The 
Cellular Cryptogams are thus fairly introduced at points lower than 
that of the appearance of any higher type of vegetation, and by the close 
of the Silurian fifty species had made their appearance, constituting 
85 per cent of all the life of that epoch as thus far found. Not only in 
this case, but all through the series, the order in which these great 
types of vegetation are here drawn up agrees substantially with that of 
their appearance on the globe, as shown by actual specimens collected 
and determined. If the system of classification had been based exclu- 
sively upon paleontological data, there would be no force in this, but, as 
I have shown, it is in large measure that of botanists proper who never 


argue from paleontology, and most of the points in which it differs from 
accepted botanical systems have been independently confirmed by 
structural botanists. 

More remarkable still, perhaps, than the early appearance of marine 
alge is that of certain well-organized vascular plants that must have 
inhabited the land. Among the earliest forms of terrestrial vegetation 
we find the ferns, those graceful forms whose green, airy fronds are still 
the delight of every judge of natural beauty. We have at least one 
well-authenticated species in the Silurian—Zopteris Morierii of Saporta— 
found by Moriére a few years ago at the base of the Middle Silurian, a 
gilt figure of which its namer has made the frontispiece of one of his 
last works.* The fern may be almost taken to represent the primary 
form of the vegetative process. Its delicate spray resembles, most of 
all plant-forms, the exquisite frost-work which we see on our windows on 
a cold morning. The physicists tell us that these latter are the result 
of molecular activities and consist in the deposit of solidified molecules 
of invisible vapor. Plant-growth consists in the deposit of solidified 
carbon molecules upon the growing surfaces of plants. Perhaps, then, 
we should not wonder at the resemblance between the earliest forms of 
plant life and those other forms which nature creates by the action of 
the same principle, and which the chemist can imitate in certain modes 
of precipitation. 

In the Devonian we have 79 species of ferns, and this type of vegeta- 
tion reaches its maximum in the Carboniferous epoch, which, if we ex- 
tend it to include the Subcarboniferous and the Permian, furnishes 877 
species, forming nearly 45 per cent of the total flora of that epoch. 
There are good reasons for supposing that during this age the ferns 
were nearly all arborescent and really formed a large part of the Car- 
boniferous forests. From this time forward they declined both in num- 
ber and vigor until, at the present time, they are only 2 per cent of 
the vegetation of the globe, and in nearly all cases consist of low 
herbaceous plants, almost valueless except for their singular beauty. 

Let us next consider the type which is here denominated the Equiseti- 
nee. At the present time the natural order EHquisetacee embraces all 
the plants of this group, and they are very few indeed and insignificant 
in size, but in the Carboniferous age they formed nearly 10 per cent of the 
vegetation, and furnished the great Calamites, which clearly show that 
they were no mean element in the forest growth of that period. Certain 
plants of this group—Sphenophyllum primevum, Annularia Romingeri— 
were found by Mr. Lesquereux in the Cincinnati group of the Silurian, 
an horizon, perhaps, lower than that of Hopteris, and we must therefore 
regard this type as of exceedingly ancient origin. The Calamites dis- 
appear entirely in Mesozoic time and the type dwindles into insignifi- 

246.e Monde des Plantes avant l’apparition de "homme. Paris, 1879. (See pp. 35, 166.) 


The Lycopodinee, now represented by the natural order Lycopodiacee, 
and constituting little more than one-third of 1 per cent of the living 
vegetation of the globe, embraced in the Carboniferous epoch the lepi- 
dodendroid group. About four hundred species of these plants have 
been described from the Subcarboniferous to the Permian, and during 
their reign they formed nearly one-fourth of the vegetation of the globe. 
They were the largest forest trees of their time, and sometimes attained 
a great size, though, of course, nothing approaching the giants of our 
present forests. This ancient, or archaic, type disappears entirely with 
the Permian, and never reappears. Its degenerate descendants con- 
tinue down to the present, chiefly in the form of club mosses, of which 
considerable variety exists. 

The two remaining groups of cryptogamic plants, the Rhizocarpee 
and the Ligulate, possess little paleontological importance, although the 
number of species, including spore-cases, that have been referred to the 
former of these orders has now reached seventeen, four of which are 
Paleozoic (Devonian and Subcarboniferous) and four Mesozoic. These, 
as well as most of the Miocene species, belong to the genus Salvinia or 
one nearly allied to it (Protosalvinia Dawson), although one Pilularia 
has been found at Giningen, and a true Marsilia occurs in an undescribed 
collection now in my hands, made by Captain Bendire in the Miocene 
of the John Day River region, Oregon, and which I propose to call Mar- 
silia Bendirei, should there prove to be no inaccuracy in this determi- 

As regards the Ligulate, they are still less frequent in the fossil state, 
and are thus far represented only by the two very dissimilar genera, 
Selaginella and Isoetes. Unless, as has been affirmed, the former of 
these genera has its representatives in the Carboniferous, the group is 
not found lower than the Cenomanian of Atane, Greenland, where Heer 
has detected his Selaginella arctica. Mr. Lesquereux has described 
three species of this genus in the Laramie group, and the same author 
has found a true Isoetes in our Green River Eocene, at Florissant, Colo- 
trado. Two more species of Isoetes from the Miocene of Europe exhaust 
the enumeration, making in all only seven species of Ligulate. 

We have thus rapidly glanced at the relative development of each of 
the cryptogamous types of vegetation, and will next consider that of the 
phanerogamous types. As already shown, the Gymnosperms stand 
lowest, and have probably, in some still undiscovered way, descended 
from the Cryptogams. Of these we place the Cycadacec lowest on ac. 
count of their endogenous growth, circinate estivation, and other char- 
acteristics which seem to ally them to the ferns. Still, as the lines are 
now drawn by the best authorities, the Cycadacez cannot be traced be- 
low the Carboniferous, while the archaic progenitors of the Conifers 
extend far down into the Silurian. If we refer the Medullose to the 
ferns, as Renault and Grand’ Eury would have us do, only three cyca- 
daceous plants occur in the Carboniferous; but one of these is a true 


Pterophyllum from the coal measures of China, and there is probably a 
second from Europe. Fourteen species occur in the Permian, includ- 
ing the typical genera Dioonites and Olathraria. It is not, however, 
until the Keuper is reached that this type of vegetation assumes a 
leading part, and throughout the Jurassic it continues to be the most 
abundant form of plant life. In the Lias it forms 43 per cent of the 
flora of that formation, though this may be accidentally exaggerated. 
It was 28 per cent of the Oolitic flora and more than 35 per cent of 
that of the Wealden. From this point, however, its decline was rapid 
and uninterrupted until in the living flora only 75 species of cycadace- 
ous plants are known to botanists. Of these North America can claim 
but a single one, the sago-palm (Zamia angustifolia) of our extreme 
Southeastern States. 

Passing to the Conifere, we find the Cordaites Robbii of Dawson 
from the Devonian of Canada recurring in the Upper Silurian of Hé- 
rault. This genus was formerly supposed to be the prototype of the 
Cycadacee, but, as already remarked, this opinion is now abandoned by 
the best authorities, and the genus referred to the Conifere. The evi- 
dence upon which this change rests cannot be presented here, but it is 
proper to say that the savants who have marshaled it have done so in 
such a manner as to render their conclusion akin to irresistible. But 
its adoption has carried with it a train of consequences which cannot be 
escaped. Not Cordaites alone, or with its spore-bearing parts (Cordai- 
anthus) and its fruit (Cordaicarpus), but Neggerathia, Trigonocarpus, 
Cardiocarpus, Rhabdocarpus, Sternbergia, Artisia, etc., must all follow 
in its wake and be gathered, one and all, into the great family of the 
Conifere. it is thus, as shown by our table and diagram, that this 
type assumes such a commanding position far back in Paleozoic time, 
forming about one-fourth of the vegetation of the Permo-carboniferous 
epoch. Doubtless this effect is exaggerated by duplications caused 
by giving different names to separate parts of the same plant, but this 
occurs throughout the series only to a less obvious degree. 

The true Conifer, which have some representatives in the Paleozoic, 
replace the Cordaitew entirely in the lower Trias and thereafter vie 
with the Cycadacee for supremacy, which they do not fairly attain 
until the lower Cretaceous is reached. Being of a higher type of struct- 
ure than the latter by reason of their exogenous mode of growth and 
other peculiarities, they refuse to succamb in competition with the now 
rising Angiosperms and continue to hold their own through much of 
the Tertiary. At the present time the number of known species (300) 
would denote a great decline, but this is in large part made up by the 
wonderful predominance and territorial expansion of these persistent 
forms. Although from the point of view of the number of species 
alone, the present Conifer would form but one-fourth of 1 per. cent 
of the vegetation of the globe, we in fact find vast tracts of country 
covered with pine, fir, and spruce forests, excluding. almost completely 


all other types. But that the pine family is now waning there can be 
no doubt. Important forms have wholly disappeared, and others that 
once were abundant have now nearly vanished from the earth. Of this 
last truth an example of unusual interest is furnished by the genus 
Sequoia. Of the score or more of species that made up so large a part 
of American Tertiary forests our well-known “ big tree” of the Sierras 
(S. gigantea) and our California red-wood (S. sempervirens) now stand 
alone and continue the combat against fate—the closing struggle of a 
dying race. 

Of the G@netacew J need not here speak, as its paleontological record 
is almost nil, and its importance depends upon circumstances wholly 
disconnected from its prevalence as a type of vegetation. 

We come now to the Angiosperms. A great step forward had been 
taken, and in her solicitude for her offspring Nature had, as it were, 
built a house over the hitherto unprotected germs of plant life. The 
closed ovary marks an era in the march of vegetal development. 

The earliest form in which the Angiosperms appeared was that of 
the Monocotyledon. Issuing from the seed and from the ground as a 
single spear or blade, the plants of this type grow up chiefly by an in- 
ternal circulation which can only deposit nutrition at the apex (endo. 
genous growth). As the lowest type of Angiosperms we find them, 
according to our scheme of classification, occupying also the earliest 
position in the stratified deposits of the earth’s crust. 

The existence of Monocotyledons in the Carboniferous and Permian 
was long disputed, although Corda, after the most exhaustive study of 
their structure, was obliged to refer two species of endogenous wood 
to that subclass. This determination has been thus far sustained, and 
to these have been added Paleospathe Sternbergii, Unger, in the Car- 
boniferous, and two other species in the Permian. .The very problem- 
atical Spirangium has generally been regarded as the fruit of some 
Xyris-like Monocotyledon, and this view has been quite recently de- 
fended by Nathorst. Its occurrence in the Carboniferous is now also 
abundantly established by its discovery at Wettin, at Saint Etienne, and 
at Pittston, Pennsylvania. Certain lily-like forms, called Yuccites, are 
found in the lower Trias, and through the remaining Mesozoic these forms 
increase slowly and are reinforced by screw-pines and a few sedge-like 
plants. The monocotyledonous vegetation, however, does not receive 
any marked character until the advent of the great palm family, which 
dates from the Middle Cretaceous. From this time, notwithstanding 
the rivalry of the now dominant Dicotyledons, this type progressed, 
reaching its relative maximum in the Evcene. Overslaughed by the 
higher growths, it thenceforward declined, but still numbers some 
20,000 species and forms over one-eighth of the total flora of the pres- 
ent epoch. 

The step from the Monocotyledon to the Dicotyledon is very great, 
and it seems to have required a vast period of time to accomplish it. 


Not only must a new form of growth from the seed and from the ground 
be developed, and a sort of bilateral symmetry be introduced, but in ad- 
dition to this, and, as I believe, in great part due to it, the exogenous 
mode of circulation and tissue growth must supplant the endogenous 
one, whereby the stem may increase in thickness as well as in length. 
These great mechanical problems were worked out during Mesozoic 
time and in the Middle Cretaceous, represented in this country by the 
Dakota group, and in Europe by the Cenomanian epoch, the great type 
of plant life appeared which was destined to domiuate the world and 
sink all other forms into insignificance. But the most astonishing fact 
is that this young giant was born, as it were, fall grown. In this lowest 
horizon at which any Dicotyledons appear” we have already obtained’ 
more than three hundred species belonging to all three of the great 
divisions of the subclass, and exhibiting ample, luxuriant foliage. They 
embrace many of our most familiar forms, the poplar, the birch, the 
beech, the sycamore, and the oak. Here appears the fig tree, the true 
laurel, the sassafras, the persimmon, the maple, the walnut, the mag- 
nolia, and even the apple and the plum. We must conclude, then, that 
the Dicotyledonshad a much earlier origin than is shown by our defective 
record, and that they had been long developing through the Mesozoic 

If now we follow the advancing wave of plant life from this point up- 
ward we shall see that from the new vantage-ground furnished by the 
closed ovary, the perfect flower, and the exogenous trunk, its march 
was rapid and steady until we reach the Miocene Tertiary, the culmi- 
nating point in the paleontological series. Here the species actually 
found are numbered by thousands, and the higher types greatly pre- 
dominate over the lower ones. But from this point the record begins 
to fail, and can no longer be trusted. Very little is found in the Plio- 
cene, and still less in the Quaternary; but this cannot indicate an ac- 
tual decline in these types of vegetation. It must be due to the ap- 
proach of a state of things which rendered the preservation of vegetable 
remains difficult, a condition, as already remarked, which is especially 
characteristic of the present state of the globe. The march of the Di- 
cotyledons was uninterrupted, and still continues. The figures given in 
the numerical table represent, in round numbers, the ‘stimates of 
Messrs. Bentham and Hooker, as given in their “Genera Plantarum,” 
and may, therefore, be taken as the most reliable that can be obtained. 
The three divisions of the Dicotyledons combined amount to 87,000 spe- 
cies, and constitute nearly 60 per cent. of the flora of the globe. 

With regard to the three divisions of the Dicotyledons, although they 
are all represented in the lowest formation at which any considerable 
number are found, still the Apetale constitute a larger proportion of the 
Dicotyledons in the Cenomanian (45 per cent) than in the Miocene (37 

urit we accept the solitary Populus primeva, Heer, from the Urgonian beds of 
Kome, Greenland. 
GEOL 84——29 


per cent), and very much larger in the Tertiary than in the living flora 
(14 per cent), while the Gamopetal, which constitute only 5 per cent 
in the Cretaceous, reach 15 per cent in the Miocene, and 46 per cent in 
the living flora, here exceeding the Polypetala. From these facts it is 
evident that the order of development is such as I have here given it, 
and that the type of the future is to be not the Polypetalz but the 
Gamopetale. These conclusions are independently corroborated by a 
large mass of evidence of other kinds, but space forbids me to adduce 
it in detail. I may simply say, however, that just as the closed ovary 
of the Angiosperm in general furnished a condition for the development 
of that class at the expense of the unprotected Gymnosperm, so the two 
floral envelopes of the Polypetale and Gamopetale enabled those divi- 
sions to outstrip the Apetale with its single floral envelope; and since 
this advantage is proportional to the degree of protection secured, the 
Gamopetale, with their tubular corollas are manifestly better adapted 
to survire in this respect than the Polypetale. This is the chief argu- 
ment, and, putting it with that from paleontology, it seems sufficiently 
conclusive without detailéd support. 

Discussion of Diagram No. II.—In this diagram the time equivalents 
are the same as in the last, but only the more important types are rep- 
resented. The Rhizocarpee, Ligulate, and Gnetacee are omitted, and 
the Dicotyledons as a whole are shown, disregarding their subdivision 
into Apetale, Polypetale,and Gamopetale. A figure is added represent- 
ing the total of all the formations, and this is probably the most impor- 
tant of them all, as least affected by the gaps and fluctuations in the 
record. No account could, of course, be taken of the living flora, as is 
done in Diagram No.I, for while between the fossil and the living floras 
there is a similarity in the proportion that the types in each bear to the 
sums of such floras, no such analogy holds between the number of species 
actually known inany fossil flora and the number in the living flora. This, 
at least, is true of the total floras and of all the types except, perhaps, 
the Cycadace and the Couifere. But even here the comparison would 
fail to express the rapid decline which these forms have evidently un- 
dergone, at least so far as the number of their species, which represents 
their diversity, is concerned. 

While the diagram is of little service as a means of representing the 
true development of each type of vegetation or of the general flora of 
past ages, it has considerable value as an exponent of the true charac- 
ter of the phyto-geologic record. It shows more clearly and more strik- 
ingly than any words or figures could do the great differences that 
characterize the different periods of geologic time in their susceptibility 
to deposit, preserve, and afterwards expose to scientific investigation 
the vegetable forms that coustituted the floras of those periods. While 
this is well shown for the several dominant types it is especially obvi- 
ous in the figure illustrating the entire flora. Here are brought promi- 
nently into view, first, the age of island vegetation in the Carbon- 


Geological forma- Vascular. 
Ferns. Equisetinez. Lycopodine. 
| X 
ry | Mio- 
2 Pliocene. 
| ¢. 
a |& 
O;/E ~ 
& | 
Cretaceous | 
Si H 
=} + 
a a 
Pei mo-Carbo- 
Ci (re es 




Gymnosperms. Angiosperms. All vegetation. 

Cycadacee. | Conifer. | Monocotyledons. Dicotyledons. | 


M No. 2. 


iferous ;. next, the second and still greater age of extensive marsh, 

vast low silat cut by shallow estuaries or partially or wholly cut off 
from the sea and forming brackish or fresh water deposits, which culmi- 
nated in the Miocene; then, the two intermediate periods of only less 
favorable conditions occurring in the Brown Jura and the Cenomanian, 
respectively; and, finally, the long intermediate ages of less favor- 
able or wholly unfavorable conditions and the abrupt termination of 
the entire period of plant deposition which accompanied the age of 
mountain building towards the close of the Tertiary. The almost com- 
plete absence of vegetable remains in the Trias, the lower Cretaceous, 
and the Turonian of both continents points to the probable general sub- 

sidence of land areas at those epochs, at least for such portions of the 
earth’s surface as have been explored by paleontologists. But the great 
relative abundance of such life in the middle and again in the extreme 
upper Cretaceous shows that those must have been great land areas at 
all times—areas which are now either under the sea or belong to some 
of the still scientifically “‘ unexplored regions” of the globe. .The proof 
of this is made conclusive by the fact that new and higher types come 
forth abruptly in these floras which must have required ages of most 
favorable conditions for their prior devc lopment. 

Discussion of Diagram No. ITI.—This diagram is simply the application 
of the rational scientific method to the incomplete facts afforded by the 
present infantile state of the science of fossil plants. It does not pretend 
to give the exact history of plant development, but only to constitute 
a certain advance in this direction beyond what the fragmentary data 
out of which it is constructed can alone furnish. For example, it is 
certain that the earliest record discovered by man of the existence of 
any type of vegetation cannot mark the absolute origin of that type, 
and it is therefore necessary in every case to project the type down- 
ward to an unknown distance. If the real facts could be indicated we 
should see during these unrecorded periods the actual transformations 
which must also be assumed to have taken place in each case before 
the fully-developed type could appear. This we are unable to repre- 
sent, and must merely indicate the early history of each type by its 
downward projection to an assumed point of origin. Neither can it be 
supposed that the great fluctuations shown in the diagram last con- 
sidered are due altogether or chiefly to fluctuations in the degree of 
vigor, territorial expansion, or local prominence of the given form of 
vegetable life. They are the results of varying geological conditions or 
of human good fortune, while the modifications in the forms themselves 
take place slowly and at uniform rates either in the ascending or the 
descending scale. Recognizing this law of uniformity, no fluctuations 
in any homogeneous type have been admitted, but simply a more or 
less regular development in each from its assumed point of origin to its 
supposed period of maximum predominance, followed by an equally uni- 
form decline to the present epoch when its condition relative to past 


epochs is also indicated. The only exception to this rule has been made 
in the case of the Cellular Cryptogams, whose heterogeneous character 
has doubtless caused it to undergo considerable fluctuation. One such 
is assumed in the Carboniferous, in which, though one of the great pe- 
tiods of vegetable deposition, the actual number of Cellular Cryptogams 
falls below that of either preceding or subsequent periods. This seems 
to argue that there was a reduced representation of this form of plant 
life in that age, and this is shown in the figure presented for that type. 

The three facts which this diagram aims chiefly to bring out, not 
shown in either of the preceding diagrams, are, first, the true origin, or 
geological age of first appearance of each type of vegetation; second, 
the period of its maximum development; and, third, the rank it occu- 
pies in the living flora relative to its maximum. These are all delicate 
points to fix in a manner that will satisfy all the conditions of the problem. 
The evidence from all sides has to be cautiously weighed, care taken not 
to give undue weight to any nor to undervalueany. These are not ques- 
tions that can be hastily settled. They require to be pondered long 
and well. Itis by no means claimed that substantial truth has been 
reached in every case. No two persons, however competent, would 
probably exactly agree upon all the points, and I am sure that at differ- 
ent times with increasing evidence I have modified my own conclusions. 
But this is far from confessing that the attempt is valueless, and it is 
certain that great value should be attached to the enlarged conceptions 
of vegetal development that flow from such a study. 

Descent of plants.—But we need not stop here. The great law of de- 
velopment does not allow us to contemplate these types as independent 
of oneanother. Each class of plants must be regarded as the descend- 
ants of some ancestral form more or less different from it. The multiple 
origin of existing forms, whether of plants or animals, is repugnant to 
modern scientific thought. Itis the discovery of facts that has rendered 
itso. The multiple and varied of the present must be regarded as due 
to divergences in the past. The forms we have have come down to us 
along divergent lines from common ancestral forms. These are the 
lines of descent, and plants have their lines of descent as well as animals 
or human families. Of this we are practically certain, but just what 
those lines are and where they diverged—these are the great problems 
of phytogeny. 

The lines of descent in the animal kingdom have been laid down by 
various eminent zodlogists with considerable confidence and unanimity. 
In plant life they have scarcely ever been attempted. The problem is 
loaded with extraordinary complications and cannot be satisfactorily 
attacked until we shall possess far more knowledge than we possess at 


Geological forma- 


Quaternary. | 







lisetinew. | Lycopodinee. 






Angiosperms. All vegetation. 


5 = 
DiaGraM No. 3. 




Accompanying papers with report of Di- 
TOQUE tcc tcc s sencatineducitebonsueeeeues 67-452 
Adams County, Wisconsin ................ 223, 235 
Adiantum, Supposed fossil ................. 402 
Administrative reports ..................2. 3-66 
; Becker, G.S ...... 47-49 

; Chamberlin, T. C.. 20-24 

; Clarke, F. W ..... 59-62 
; Dutton, Capt. C. 
Reecattaeseeene 42-43 
; Emmons, 8. F..... 4347 
; Gannett, Henry.. 3-14 
; Gilbert, G. K ..... 30-34 

; Hague, Arnold ... 15-19 
; Hayden, Dr. F. V. 28-30 
; Irving, Prof. Rol- 

and D ..........-. 24-28 
; Marsh, Prof. O.C. 49-50 
3; McGee, W J...... 34-41 
; Shutt, George W 64-66 
; Walcott, Charles 

; Ward, Lester F... 55-59 
; White, Dr. C. A .. 50-51 
; Williams, Albert, 

JP scese sien aetslaeewss 63-64 

Advantages for artesian wells of low incli- 
nation of strata 146 
Agams.............2- 429 
Agawmok, Lake ..... 207 
AgasslZ,; Prof. Av ccc. see cescncdnecaweeemete 54 
L., an authority on glaciers... 309 
; botany...-.------..- dua 376 

Agricola on petrified wood 

BW OR i eo iaiscicicieerersnpersie ssincicieieersccecicmsies 
Airy, G. B., cited ........2... 0022-2 een ee eee 80 
Alaska glaciers ~-- 348-355 

Albertus Magnus the first to mention pet- 

rified wood.......----- 

on the virtus formativa. 
Aleutian Islands glaciers .............-.+-- 

Alexander ab Alexandro on the Flood as the 

cause of fossil remains ....-. ----.------- 391 
Allan, Thomas, Contributions of, to paleo- 

DOAN nie ssc eases seisew ses eccieesseees 404 

Alport, S...ssi6: sececeseees -. 214 

Amber Flora. ......--2..--0+. 415, 418 

¢ ABO OTM wcnnnennwra - 418 

; Origin and nature of ... --- 403 

, Vegetable inclusions in....-.--... 415, 418 

Amber-tree .....--..-. uegeseeeee wae = 0-408, 418 

; Page. 
SAO weocsn ree ceri doses e cinaijoeeeakwincuuiet 255 
Amphibolites studied microscopically...... 201 
Ancient glaciers of the Sierra Nevada...... 327 

shores, Recognition of ...... 122 
Ancients; causes of their ignorance. --- 888 
j Passages supposed to indicate 
their atquaintance with fossil 
WORT, O0C.or.sursenceasuueuwk ase 387 | 
, Knowledge and opinions of the, 
- relating to fossils.......... 386, 393, 398 
wholly ignorant of vegetable pet- 
Tifactions .... 387 
EE GS Oe Msi dveonieninacancaiasleg - 416 
Andrews, Dr. Edmund, on wave action..... 88 
Angiosperms........--.2. 00.022 sees cceees 433 
, Development of the.......... 448 

Animikie rocks . ..182, 187, 192, 193, 196, 197, 203-205 
~ 206, 207, 215, 218, 224 

225, 226, 227, 228 

series; The 222 ccceeense exceed 203-205 

Annularia established by Sternberg........ 428 
regarded by Lindley and Hut- 

ton as a dicotyledon.......-... 480 

Romingeri ........2.. -.--...--- 445 
sphenophylloides mistaken by 

Lehmann fora fossil Aster .. 396 

Aplin, S.A .. 
Appalachian Division, The. -............... 48 
Archean Formations of N. W. States; Prof. 
R. D. Irving. ...-......--.---.- 175-242 
Rocks studied by Prof. R. D. 
TPVAN gs ioxcsie su ceinececicesuiclarte xxii 
Areas of adverse, doubtful, and favorable 
probabilities for artesian wells. ......... 172-173 
Archeus, or spirit of the universe......... 389 

Aristotle's doctrine of generatio equivoca.386, 389 

conceptions of time limits ...... 398 

Arlington Praitie, Wisconsin; St. Peter’s 
sandstone -. ween. 228, 224 
Arnold, Theodore, on the origin of fossils.. 390 
Artesian wells, Art of sinking....-......-. 169 

, Chicago, Il.. 
, Conditions of f 
; confining stratum above... 

;. below... 138 
COstOfisccwerectusenesecace 170 
, Decline of flow in - 157-165 
, Denver, Col........ ~~ 45, 151 
, Essential features of...... - 134 

454 INDEX: 
Page. Page. 
Artesian wells, Fond du Lac, Wis ...-..-.. 143 | Benton County, Minnesota......-..---....- 200 
, Increasing flow in ........ 154,155 | Berger, Reinhold, on the fruits and seeds of 
, Irrigation by -.----- 148 the Carboniferous formation 420, 421 
, Limits to depthof ... 167 | Bernadou, John B., U.S.N .-..-.-..--.22--- 32 
, Oshkosh, Wis .--.- 143 | Bernardo glacier, Alaska ..-.......----.--- 352 
, Palmyra, Wis .--.....-..-- 143 | Bianconi, Giuseppe G., on the determina- 
; prerequisites .....-.-. .--- 135 tion of leaves by their nervation. -+--B80, 420 
, Rate of delivery in........ 154 | Bibliography of North American geology... xxx 
; superiority of oil region Bibliolithi, Bibliolithes..... .......--.-426, 427, 428 
methods......---------+-- 169 | Bien, Morris 5 
; typical examples a 184) Big vRork Rivers. so. ccccecuieniceeteees 206 
; use of the diamond drill... 169 | Big Stone Lake..........-.-.--22.--..02-6-- 200 
, Watertown, Wis ..-....--- 143 | ‘‘ Big tree" of the Sierras. we. 448 
Artificial vs. Natural systems of classifica- Bilobites rugosa ....---...-- .-222----seeeeee 444 
HOD se ce dageemtee nes Heveaceecee aces wees 432 | Binney, Edward William.........-....------ 369 
Artis, E. T,; ‘‘Antediluvian Phytology ”..405, 406 , Contributions of, to paleobotany 
ATUBIassccashohicansseeeceeheceeesnecaS -. 447 412, 415, 420, 421 
Ashland County, Wisconsin ....-.. 218, 226, 232, 235 pOKOtCh Of sc ssc sicincutiees ear casan. 374 
Aspleninum .......2.-...eee ee eee ee eens -- 428 | Biographical sketches of the leading paleo- 
Aster Amellus ...... 022.2. .ece ee ee een eee 396 BOtADISES sap e,- 532.0 Seicic a rcisiee Sicicisicisie’s wtnieieinrs 
montanus, Lehmann’s supposed Biology, Interrelations of Geology and 
POSSI sic 55 dora cee iiweienteysreseie aoa Binge, Wo Miecaaaiaircaacivinarans. okisirarsiclavertcheineters 
Sibiricus . Bimmoy Ds. Waseca siyelveee ss 
aAsteiophyliites Black Bay, Lake Superior 

Atking WJ: Dissecen see eesnayeesieeaos: 
Augite schists studied microscopically ...-. 211 
Auer and Worring's invention of physioty- 

SPY Sowa Seeiawidna A cewehma ms eemenuieeece 380 
Aura seminalis........... 3 390 
Avicenna proposed vis lapidifica . --589, 390 
PATONG 23 eseiac into sinsisie seem semecees 432, 438 
SBAGURY OF vacas wip icicreemisalvereisisieteliciowenarat? 195, 228, 232 
Ballenstedt, J.G. F., on vegetable fossils... 408 
‘Bar, Phe scncncosessscaswus we tess sees 91, 92-95 

NiBhaped sectscs scone nities kinks sce 98 

Barrier, The 

Barron County, Wisconsin ........-....-.-- 197 
Barus; Dus Carl seensieiesein de sac ediacslenien XXXVI, 62 
Bassett, C.C 

Basswood Lake -.........-.-.2.--2-26- 205, 207, 208 
Bauder, F. Fr., Rational views of, on the 

nature of foasils.....--.........-.2.02.--- 395 
BaUBINS acest soe es dele aciassiamasiese 388, 389, 390 
Beach, Hon. Horace, on artesian wells ...-- 149, 151 

ISU B icrocu ta sictete st ajatota cain tevcinlepe) avalerovanacuaiereie cate 87 
Beaumont, Elie de, on wave action ....... 76, 79, 89 
sandstones ........-- 220 

Beche. (See Dela Beche.) 
BeCker, GhiPiencck nates as Seer at sate aiet Gate, XXIV 
, Administrative report of ..... 47-49 
Beds bearing water .....-.....-.-...2..-2-- 135 
, Inclination of.....-... 141 
confining water .........6.---..0..--+ 138 
, Height of outcropping ..-....... wees 143 
, Surface condition of the porous...... 147 
Beechy, Sir F.W......-..-.20.2--2- ceeeeee 354 
Belcher, Sir E., cited on Alaska glaciers... 348 
Bell, W. H., cited on Stikine River glaciers 352 

, Canadian maps . 
Bendire, Capt. Chas .. ; 
Bentham Ji 435.655 sede cetentsedeseies sees 

River Falls, Wisconsin, Potsdam se- 

Blair, H.B 6 
Blake, W. P., on Stikine River glaciers ... 349, 352 
Blind River ......... icc wue Juceeeece 187, 189, 227 
Bloody Cafion moraines ........-..------+-- 328 

Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich, Rational 
views of, on the nature of fossils. . ..394, 395, 399 
Boccone. Paul, Rational views of, on the na- 

ture-of fossils 2.0... 052. ceceeeet ce ace: 394 
Bodfish, Sumner H....-.. 0.222. -2---- XVII, 7, 8, 41 
Bolam glacier .-......-....-- Hie cates sheiawre sash 333, 334 
Bonneville, Lake. (See Lake Bonneville.) 
Bonney; D) Giexsewenccsceeecteanecescisass 221, 240 
Bore, One large or several small ones, for 

water supply ..--.---.-----------------ee- 155 
Bos latifrons beneath ancient glacier. ...... 354 
Botanical systems.........-..-.202-2.-2005 433-439 
Botanilithes: ...cssecseiecissseeg vesersiac sae 427 
Botany and phleobotany ; independent man- 

ner in which they 
have heretofore 
been studied.... 367 
, Interdependence 
Ofsereestae'itaces 366 
Boteler Wa. \we:o2 38 eesti we eiee sees 5,14 
Bowerbank’s ‘' Fossil Fruits and Seeds of 

the London Clay”’....--......2--2----.--- 413 
Braddock’s Bay, Lake Ontario, Map -...-.- 94 
Brain Growth: - sc. vseteeee pecs. cay 288-294 

of Dinocerata ............... 284-294 
Brainerd, Minn., Geological formation at .. 197 
Braun, Friedrich, Paleobotanical contribu- 

tons Of sseasncetade soeeusntiweesee nee es 420 

Brewer, Prof.W. H., on glacial dirt bands.. 319 

; oxperiments on sediments......... 62 
Brewster, Patrick, Contributions of, to paleo- 

Bridger series .. 
BOON SMITE, Doc nsivnnviews vaiccoosune 

INDEX. 455 
Page. Page. 
Brongniart, A.; fossil plantsof Hér,Sweden. 404 Catlinite or pipestone ................06 =» 201 
A. T.; classification of fossil Cellular cryptogams ............20.2.00005 429, 432 
plants .......... 407, 428, 429 of Brongniart ......... 429 
; Contributions of, to pa- ; probable fluctuations 
leobotany . .404, 405, 406, 408, in development..... 452 
417, 421, 424, 428 | Cerutus, B ............. 393 

; division of the geologic 

series ........ waldo eis 407 
; distribution of land veg- 

etation ............. 404, 407 
; mode of growth of coal 

plants .....20-....... 400 

» Rank of, as a paleo- 
botanist ....368, 369, 406, 407 

§ SRO Ol eo cvnwcsnenay 372 
Bronn, H.G.; Index Paleontologicus..... 420, 421 
Brontotherium beds.......................- 254 

Brooks, Maj. T.B ......... -190, 191, 193, 229 
Brown County, Minnesota..... ........... 200, 202 
Crown, Robert, on Triplosporites .......... 421 
Bruce Mine Bay, Lake Huron, quartzite... 230 
Briickmann, F. E., on the diluvian origin of 
fossil remains ...... 2.0... .cc cc cee eee ee ee 392 
Brush, Prof. George J ............ wee BA 
Buch, L. von; mode of growth of coal plant. 400 
; nervation of leaves.......... 380 
Buckland, W., Contributions of, to paleo- 
PGB OB ei § 5.56 se cman qmincoonnwas 
Bunbury, Sir C.D ccc etcawseuwacovences 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany, 419, 420 
pele: OF ccerec cu eunuene osuae 379 
Bittner, D. §8., on the diluvian origin of fos- 
BU TOMAS. ec cewacnenees 392 
Calamitas o. spieseicedevasniccephiiniecece sus 426 
regarded by Walch and Suckow 
as extinet..........-0- 2 eee eee 398 
Calamites...........-.. areiceietnnnee 427, 428, 433, 445 
California division, The. 
Call, R. E.......----. 

Cambrian formation 
Camerarius, Elias, on the origin of fossils... 
Campement d’ Ours Island gray wacke 
Canon, Twommneirca a ax: cscwecs ses ecsaeee 

Capeller, Maurus Antonius, on the tropical 

facies of fossil plants..........-.-.---.... 397 
Capellint) Ge s....ce:cjocccicncouend coneccoaese 378 
CardiocarpuS.....-...----------cececeenenee 447 
Carl, J. F., on artesian wells of oil region.. 169 

, describes packing support in 
bored wells ............-----. 159 

, describes use of torpedo in oil 
a 155 

, Samuel, Rational views of, on the nature 
Of fOSsUSs eee etewedecewece sees - 894 
Carpenter, P. H.,an authority on glaciers... 309 
Carpolithes .........-202.--ececceeceeeeens 427, 428 
Carpolithi...........0..020. cee ee eee e cence 426 
Carruthers, William ....... as -- 869 
; paleobotanicalinvestigations.. 424 

Chamberlin, T. C XXI 
; administrative report......... 20-24 
; geology of Wisconsin cited.... 197 

; map of Wiseonsin ........... 181, 194 
ithe requisite and qualifying 

conditions of artesian wells. 125 
Champion mine, Michigan.................. 225 
Chaney, G. O.........22... Bee 56 
Chaplin, J ...... 2. eee ee Sees easeisbeastad 44 
Chapman, R. H...-. 2... le eeeeeee eee eee eee 6 
Chase). We Siicn6 ss orl Lecoectwen seca 10 
Chatard, Dr. Thomas M............ --XXVII, 60, 61 
Chauvenet, W. M......... --- 25, 26, 28, 205, 208 
Chemie work ..........20...c0c2s cece cceeee XXVIT 
Chemical impregnations in artesian well 
WAT OD sects Scrsis.sccocieateinea-ckwecabeice ine 166 
Chemistry, Division of; administrative re- 
eivinininiasuintattinisi diaiave'sta caeiee stabatie glee mies 59 
--- 229 

Chester, Prof. A. H., on Minnesota iron 

OF8 ote vecs vacezen estan acces 204, 205, 206, 208, 212 
Chicago artesian stream, Section........... 133 
Chioccns, Andreas, Rational views of, on 

the nature of fossils 

TOGO: . ancaadewiennnnnvend 
Valley. casio cha decemsctadeccecien 
Chlorite Schists studied microscopically... 211 
Chondrites antiqnisenccss cscs udesons ues 44t 
Cialdi, Alessandro, cited as to waves..76, 80, 82, 88 
Cincinnati group............-....0-.--..02. 182 
Clarke, Prof. F. W .-...--..-.-.cecceeseanes XXVII 
} administrative report.............. 59 
Salem, on motion of Lyell glacier... 324 
Classification of archwanrocks of the North- 
Wests cosiseccoss ccc ceemar 209 
fossil plants. . 403, 407, 422, 425-431 
, Lindley & Hut- 
ton on the.409-409 
the Cryptogams 437-439 
Clathrariaisssesessccuecrcs cecessivaeedeuaee 447 
Clay slate from St. Louis River, Minnesota. 233 
- near Mahtowah, Minn...... 233 
studied microscopically.......... 210 
Clearwater Lake graywacke.....-.--.-.... 
Cliff of differential degradation 
, The Beabcvreeewscay oe re 
StTOAM .... 20-2 e ee eee ee eee eee 
Cliffs ...-....----.+-- 

, Comparison of... 
Coal, Opinions on the origin of. 

plants, Mode of growth of............ 400 
Collecting area of artesian wells ... - 145 
Colman, E. T., ascended Mount Baker. 341 
Colonoceras .-......2-0. cee cece ee nce neeenes 255 

456 INDEX. 

Colorado River modified by artesian wells... 150 

Colt: Tis: Divneivstiscewiswmectioneec sensansentes 9,14 

Columbia County, Wisconsin .198, 223, 224, 233, 235 

River modified by artesian wells. 150 
Columna, Fabius, Rational views of, on the 
nature of fossils......-.--..--+----2e2--++ 393 
Compendium of Paleobotany, Preparation 
Of Bic sae scetee 363 
Conifers 433 
, Development of the 447 
Contents of Archwan Formations of North- 
western States, paper on, by 
R. D. Irving -..----+----+--++ 177 
Conditions of artesian wells, a 
paperon, byT.C.Chamberlin. 127 
Dinocerata, a paper on, by 0. C. 
Marshitscnevniasiaicte rat eiimieiness 245 
Glaciers of the United States, a 
paper on, by I. C. Russell..-. 305 
Lake shores, 2 paper on, by G. K. 
Gilbettsc2cccencwcce seeemeceee 71 
Sketch of paleobotany, by Les- 
ter F. Ward.-....---.-------- 859 
Confining stratum above for artesian wells. 139 
below for artesian wells. 138 
Contrasted ratios of supply and demand of 
WATER eos isas sincenewiod meee etree tecelses 148 

Cook, George H.; conference on map.....- 39 

Cope, E. D.; Wyoming fossils 251 
Copper Rivet ......----------+------ 217 
Corda, Angust Joseph, ....-2.s-2.00 augense 369 
, Contributions of, topaleobotany 412, 417,418 
, Sketch of .......0--.0---eeeeeeceneee 874 
Cordaianthus Soiareig Se waial palsies sialere Sreisiateiereres 447 
Cordaites ..------.+---++0+- 447 
Cordaites ...---------.seeenee 447 
Robbii ........-...- ~. 447 
Cornwall, A. B.....-.--------- eee eee nee 62 
Cornwall, England, echists 2....0...1.0.4+ 240 
Corpuscula salina of Kircher - 390 
Corrasion, Acceleration of . 117 
Coryphodon......-.--..---+ .-251, 252 
POOS jasinsicissirascs deleletmeccnesces 252 
Cotta, C. Bernhard von, Contributions of, to 
PRleOWOlADY secrneete=s cen csaeeyoeewacees 
Cottonwood County, Minnesota. . 
Coulée edge, The......-.......+ 
Cowlitz River runs from a glacier, 
Glacier cos cincesiccceecedeieewceeeease 

Cranial nerves, The. . 
Credneria -. : 

Crevasses in glaciers.......------.+----+--- 
Crichton, Sir Alexander; on the climate of 

the antediluvian world. ..........-....--- 406 
Crosnier, L ........-. 220 
Cross, Whitman ... - XXIV, 44, 46, 216 
Cry plogaminuioencnane uaeles ee Aaceiatan sen 432, 438 
, Cellular .........--..---- 429, 438, 444 
, Classification of the . 
, Vascular - 

Cucumites ........ fei 

Cummins, R. T 2 

Cup Butte, Lake Bonneville ...... masons 

Currents, Off-shore .......-.-.-.2--- 2 eee eens 

Da Costa, Emanuel Mendes, on the diluvian 

origin of fossil remains. ...~......++------ 392 
Dall, W. H., on glaciers of Alaska...--.-.. 358-355 
Dana Creek ...-.------- seeeee rene cer eee rene 316 

Glacier......-----.--- +062 --- eee cece ee 322 

Prof. James D., cited on terraces . ...112, 236 
Mount? ns -25cs2seescss acess 314, 315, 316, 317 

Prof. Edward S...--..------------ XXII, 34 
Dane County, Wisconsin, sandstone . ...... 235 
Daniells, Prof. W. W .---.-------- 27, 28, 194 
Daphnites 426 
| Darwin, C 432 
Dar wins. CxO vemwirwsccacweiecdaieinciatears widens XXX 
Daubrée, A 220 
D’ Aubuisson de Voisins on vegetable fossils. 403 
Davidson County, Minnesota .......-..---- 200 

, Prof. G.; Mount Rainier glacier .334, 335 

found Aleutian glacier. 353 

Davila, P. F., on the indigenous theory of 
fossil plants clam neve pcaye Sh sures re noae trates cjelehe 
Da Vinci, Leonardo, Rational views of, re- 

lating to the nature of fossils 

Davis: AiR swewecuncuien enews suede ecnetae 

Dawes, H. L...-.--- 

Dawson, Dr.G.M .. 

Dawson, Sir John William ....... ----..--. 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany. 416, 424 

5 SketeMoly. ws: steed esau eis B17 

Debey, M. H., on the fossil plants of Aachen 421 
De Candolle, A. P.; geographical distribu- 

tion of plauts......- 366 

; nervation of leaves... 381 

Decline of flow in artesian wells .......... 157-165 
Defrance, Jacques Louis Marin, Ccntribu- 

tions of, to paleobotany.._....-..--------- 405 
Degeneration theory of plants.-...-......-. 397 
De la Beche; Sir Henry Thomas, Contriba- 

tions of, to paleobotany ..-...-.---+ -+--- 405 
Delta, The.....- 2.2... cece cee nnn e wenn 87, 90, 1¢4 

POSS es saescicrecintjamamiewtetommmelemeeas 107 
ideal section. - seeee 107 
vertical section. .............-.- 107 
Deluc. (See Luc.) 
Deluge. (See Flood; Noachian Deluge.) 
hypothesis ....-.......--....-.0-- 
Dendrolithus --..... 

Descent of plants 
Denver, Colo., artesian ayall: bres 
Desor, E., cited as to wave action .....-..... 
Development in vegetation 
Devil’s Lake, Wisconsin....... 
Devonian, Flora of the......... 
Diabase defined...........--... 
porphyrite defined 

Diagrams illustrating the development of 
plant life ...-......... «see. -361, 442 

INDEX. 457 
Diagrams, Discussion of. .. Division é Page. 
; fe eee See eenet of Paleontology, Administrative re- 
Diamond drill for artesian-wells. POPE iaiwiciecamseecvmcw sietexe 49-60 
Peak glacier.... .....2..--.2..00. juaternary Ge stale: 
Diastrophism as Telated to topographic re- _ trative clea eee 20-24 
TICS sccmaeouslneananawes dais 76 the Pacific, Administrative re- 
' Metined: s-ccecov seed cde tnace 118 port 
Dioksonia, supposed fossil.................. 402 , The A’ppalachian. 
Dicotyledons....... 0... ceee cece cece eene ee 429, 433 California .. 
, Arrangement of the divisions Montana... 
Of th Oy cue wwee ek watccasele 431, 450 New England 
; , Development of the.......... 448, 449 Wrenn. cscvsuaeusaqees cele 10 
Diller, Ones heseccumcecamaue + +-XXIII, 42, 236, 341 | Dodge County, Wisconsin ................- 199 
Dinoceras beds.........2...sceeeeeceseeeeee 252 | Dossetter, E., photographed Alaska glaciers 352 
lacustre weet ee teen ee ee eee e eee 251 | Douglas, BE. M -.... 22.2 ..eec cc eeeeee ee eees 11,12 
laticeps .. +--- 251 / Drifting sand; dunes ....... --99, 100 
mirabile Beteenececion --++ 251 | Drift, Shore...........0.5..00004 -. 86, 87 
3 lower jaw .......... ---278-277 | Drill, Diamond, for artesian wells........... 169 
Skul) ..... 0... ee eee ee 256 | Drilling, Interpretation of.............-..++ 172 
; frontal bones .......... 260-262 Record of 170 
3 lachrymal bones . 266 | Driven wells............ 170 
; molar bones.... 265 | Dromocyou ......-2.20.- ce ccceeeececceeecce 255 
; Maxillaries .. 266 | Dulac, Alleon, on the exotic character of the 
; nasal bones............. 258 furns of Saint Etienne 
j occiput .........2.2.... 263-265 | Duck Point, Grand Traverse Bay 
; palate ....... 267-269 | Dunes.......2-..020-000.cececneeeeceeees 7, 
3 palatine bone -. 269 | Dunker, Wilhelm, Contributions of, to pale- 
j parietal bones . 260-262 Oot aR Yisrael base nas focus 419 
; premaxillaries.......... 266 | Dunnington, A.F ........02.20-ceeeeees eee 5 
} Prenasal bones.-........ 259 Dutton, Capt. C.E.... XXUL 
+ pterygoid bones . 270-272 ; administrative report.. 42, 43 
i Squamosal bones. . 269" |! Duval Si Ripe tre ccs toswcuewnenieeen meta ats 4,14 
: VomeTs ........- c 272 
# TOON cuir seein smiaed coicie 277 | Eagle Harbor, Michigan, Sandstone at ... .237-240 
: Baking (15. Gs oc cae ccnwesesceeecitnwiemesca. 
Earth augers. 
; lower molars. -. shaping... 
; Upper molars .. East Neebish Island . 
SUDO Binsin erased BX aimtlodnmmmnmenene Eau Pleine River............2. 002s eee eee ee 
first found Echo River quartzite..........20----eseeees 
, The fore limbs of.. Eccles, James; citedon Wind River glaciers 345 
i Eimbeck, W.; as to Jeff Davis glacier. ... 342, 343 
Dioonites .......-..-.0--02-0005-- Bile Rivet <.essseccseacesteuiessese ace 
Diorite defined Ellis, William 
Diplacodon beds .......-....-..--.2.+.----- 252 | Embankments 
Director, Report of the. XVI-XXXvI | Emergence, Submergence and, of shores... 110 
Dirt-bands in glaciers .. 319 | Emmons, 8. F.... . ibistas el wiaietatetced XVIII, XXIV, 9 
Discrimination of shore features, The 112 ; administrative report .......-..-.. 43-47 
Discussion of diagrams of the development quotes Gen. Kautz on glaciers..... 335 
of plant life ....---...--2.--------e cece 4438-452 on glaciers, Mount Rainier. ........ 335 
Distribution of wave-wrought shore feat- Empedocles on the origin of vegetable life. 393 
MLCS ison Sonics esse 101-103 | Empire Biuff, Lake Michigan .............. 93, 103 
wells, Advantageous .-.... 156 | Endogenites .......-...+---+-eeeeee eee eeee 408, 428 
. District of Columbia, Work in ..-.......--.- 8 | Engelhardt, H., Paleobotanical work of .... 424 
the Great Basin .........-......- x1x | Engler on the geographical distribution of 
PAG C iccsscercss xeelauaisialersiaieeg xIX PATI juieescisiwinse biel cis icin eiGinrnialate nimietetclenmreicie 366 
Diversity of rock texture causes irregularity Enlargement of feldspar fragments in cer- 
in erosion. ....--.... 2-20-20 -- 22-2 - eee eee ee 15 tain Keweenawan sand- 
Division, General organization of the geo- SLOUES 5 os ok sesso ee, 237-245 
ETAPNIC2 26: ccc secre soecessases 3 mineral fragments in cer- 
of Chemistry, Administrative re- tain detrital rocks. ...... 218 
Port. coseerecwese es 59 | Eobasileus .......-....... 251 
Geography, The .. ..--.-.-.-- 3-14 | Eopteris Morierii 445 
Mining Statistics and Technol- ‘Eozoon Canadense 444, 
Ds vainiir nen kwreewnnamnns 63-64 | Ephedra antisyphilitica..............------ 433 

458 INDEX. 
Page. Page 
Equalization of supply in wells.....-......- 149 | Flowers, Fossil.......-...2-0.-22-s-000 396, 404, 426 
Equisetaces ...-.. 22-2. 020020 sees eeeeee = 445 | Folded Schists north and east of Lake Su- 
Equisetiner .-.........22202 ceceee eee eee 4°3 DOVOR ce occd cosets ed ciciccedcis we sauinetemte 205 
, Development of the... 445 | Fontaine, W.M.; work in the fossil floras of 
EQUiS@bUID -)<aissarccicieia nase craisiainawiewiaicreloncies’s 438 VAP Bia ociciayn airs aravaten ie tarsicioton alanis arcles 424 
giganteum 398 | Forbes, Prof. J. L., an authority on glaciers .309, 319 
Equivalency of Penokee and Marquette Fore limbs of Dinocerata, The ............ 298-300 
TOGKS? 2 ivincinas cet tosmscen sind, Seheeoeeue ¢ 195 | Fossil fauna of Eocene lake region, Wyo- 
Eratosthenes on the significance of fossil Ming -...-..-.- 2.2. ee eee 250 
SNES: occ ds coiee me cremennmetaseumeelaone 386 Western Americaolder than 

Erni, Dr. Henrt..ece2: s<sceccee ctrwdncenee es 60 
Eruption causes irregularity of erosion .... 76 
Eruptive origin of certain Huronian rocks. 242 
Escape of water at levelslower thanthe well 153 
Essential features of artesian wells.-....-. 131-173 
Ettingshausen, Baron Constantin von, Con- 
tributions of, to paleobot- 

, Discoveries of, in phytogeog- 

TAPHY o- sstcagiesseien Lecce 366 

, Rank of, asa paleobotanist.368, 369 

OK OEGDY OF osieieeceveiwisianeterdye 380 

Eureka, Nevada, sandstone......-.2--.--... 235 

Existing glaciers of the United States...... 303 

ExOg@enites .cccwaesccecentawesuseewesenenss 428 

Exotic theory of fossil plants .. ...... 396, 397, 427 

Extermination theory of fossil plants ..... 396, 398 
Extinct species, Fertility of the conception 

Off, scseticicien aisle visiecinistoayaisicictieroisiseeueerctarste 398 
Paivchild; Bilis cssceisieeanvicns ooeeevete ag 18 
Farmington, Utah; view of Wasatch Mount- 

VATS) tes sees ete ors is att Aes ots on toate ten, 114 
Faujas-de Saint Fond, Barthélemy, Contri- 

butions of, to paleobotany.........--... 400, 402 
Fault scarp, The .......-.-.-----.2-----00- 113-115 

scarps and shore lines at the base of 
the Wasatch ......---...-...2--06-- 114 
WOTTACES qenemnsetieseeceaysl Uadeesies 118 
Fauna, Fossil, Eocene lake region, Wyo- 

MUGS csecicdi ss beraaaetinegeimed ccm csie! 250 
MOY), Mescsciain csiciacs patel avevainisheticwisrciseteiniaain een 28 
Felsites and felsitic porphyries studied mi- 

Croscopicall y's .csccewccscserse cess eaeaees 214 
Wermsc:s<cncseossseeute caus Segeder sews 432 

, Development of the......-..-. 445 
, Early appearance of ..........--.... 445 
Ferruginous Schists of the Black River Val- 

ley, WisCODSi Do 6icciiccsicciic cewdumscedie ns 

Filices ... 
BCI OS scr oie Serene oie 

Financial statement 

Fissured and channeled water-bearing beds. 135 
Wla bell aria: ictsinicicsrocidrcrouis aecineteelan! sisters 428 
Flathead Mountains, Glaciers of .-........ 347 
Bleteher. Dh: Crs aenc ecient ces cas 7 
Flood plains and stream terraces........... 116 

theory of fossil remains..... 390, 391, 397, 398 

, Defenders of the. . . .392, 393, 402, 408 
; Different ways in which fossil 
plants were explained by the 395,398 

Flow, Control of, in wells...--............2. 157 
, Height of, in artesian wells........... 159 
;Methods of increasing, in artesian 

WIS. a isractasisrewnrecidiowsiste’s . seams see 154 

in corresponding rocks in 

other hemisphere........ 
floras, Conditions affecting 
glaciers in Alaska........---..---- 
TOA VOBie ec oneeenewee ies < yoaiece 
plants; number of known species at 

different dates ..407, 416, 417, 421, 

422, 424, 428 

; how preserved.........----- 439 

TODS. sie Docc emicwemesGmncwmcetecs 426 

BEANE ec cjidenSiciersiacacigeicaices wiecsseisei 426 

UNCOS Soi eiicrcistdcecekecmdwles eceieeie 426 


Fossils, Early theories of the origin of ... 389, 390 

Foster and Whitney cited.....-..-.......-- 191 

Richard: 22.25. cseeesccasceeetceices 55, 56 

Fountain head of artesian wells.........-.- 144 
Fracastorius, Rational views of, on the na- 

GUTOSOL LOSSES ect ie cnicjcsodisicreca come tale 399 

Fragaria, Supposed fossil ........----..---- 395 

Franklin, Sir John ..-..--..--.---.0--00- eee 354 

Fremont’s Peak glacier ........-......2--- 344-347 

Friction in artesian wells ........-.--...-.- 157 

Fumaria, Supposed fossil ...-...----..-..-. 396 

Gabbro defined ........-..- 22-22 eee eee eee 215 

Gallium (=Galium), Supposed fossil....... 396 

Gamopetale .........------22- see ee eee eee 433, 450 

, Position of the.............. 431, 450 

Gannett, Heury.....-....-. 2-22-22 .eee-. ee 35 

; administrative report..... 3-14 

SiS sucinccisce nahaourteieistecinteaed 4, 5,12 

Gannister of Yorkshire .--............... 219, 222 

. Marquette, Mich............. 225 

Gardner, T.C., on ice blades - 
Garlick: SAvocsccsacd caretcawlagees _ 
Garrett, LeRoy M......-.......--..00.0---- 
Geiger; HiR: ce enscsseaeiweevercee sc cses RAVI BD 

Geiit6) Ween occ: acenaes 210, 227, 228, 236 
, on terraces....... 112 
Geinitz, Hans Bruno 369 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany.. 412 
se SE cece seca ease ale apes 374 
General organization of the geographic di- 
WISIOM Soca cre cse cisions serene Speed ks nie eset 3 
Generatio equivoca, Doctrine of ........... 386 
Genetic problems in Notthwest Archwan.. 185 
Geognostico-botanical view of the plant-life 
OL TG SONG x cohyenukn kee twennwnsieidinemw 439 
Geographical distribution of plants ........ 366 
Geography, Division of ............2....22. 3-14 
Geologic map of Northwest, Preliminary .. 187 

the United States, Prelim- . 
ALY wv cccenmn amie lemned XXVIII 



Geologic record, Defectiveness of the, in fos- 
sil plants ............ 22.00.04. 439, 450 
WOPK? so scteateacciseies aa Seciaescieciace XX 
Geological report of Wisconsin, cited ...... 199 
Geology and biology, Interrelations of ..... 3638 
OE Canada, P1060 eos ce isew een eco 187 

, Origin of the science of strati- 
graphical «- 898 

Gerhard, C. A... 2.22... cece ence eee 219 
Germar, E. F., on the Carboniferous flora of 
Wettin and Libejiin -... .2.2.. 22. 416 
Germ-theory of the origin of fossils . - 389, 390 
Gesner on petrified wood........-. - 888, 391 
Gibraltar Bluff, Wisconsin. ... sister 224 

GING A NE esos oe nis bisa KXVI, 53 

Gigantic mammals of the Dinocerata....... 243 
UO, Gi Re eres wees ace ner sd aawaadaes XXII 
; administrative report....... 30-34 
. as to Jeff Davis glaciers .... 343 

; the topographic features of 
lake shores ............-.. 69, 123 
; Visited glaciers of U.S...... 315 
Glacial motion; Muir cited ...... 22.0.2... 324 
Glacial phenomena....._........22...-206. 317-323 
3 Prof.T.C.Chamberlin. xxt 
records, Natwre Of oc scss.004 cesses. 313 
Glaciated surfaces 322 

Glaciation causes irregularity of erosion ... 76 
Glacier, Bolten... 2.2.2. caneevacevee: 333, 334 
movements measured 

MUG wees cceetewewseeeues 
PADIS eho wer eure uate vanes pelmas 
; largest found ......-...-.... 
on Parker Creek glacier. 319 
oy WS 18:8 occcrcicceacesees 
Glaciers, Alaska ..... 
, Aleutian 
PAIPING «oon js csi acseOeeeceseeee dan 
, Ancient, of the Sierra Nevada. 327 
, Characteristics of 309 
, Continental. .... 309 
Crevasses of..........0.--ceceesee 318 
Definition of........2....022.-..-5 311 
, Dirt bands on... 319 
; Elevation of, in the High Sierra.. 315 
, Existing, of the Sierra Nevada... 314 
, Fossil, in Alaska.................- 859 
in the Wind River Mountains....  .826 

, Mount Jefferson 

the Cascade Mountains.....-.. 
Sierra Nevada.-....-....... 

United States, Existing. . 303-355 

Glossopteris Phillipsii .......-...........-. 417 
Gneisses studied microscopically -......... 213 
Gnetacese ....---cccee cccae cere ce cee ec eene 433, 448 
Gogebic formation ........22. -1.-eeseeeeeee 193 

Lake .....- - -194, 195, 196 
Gooch, Dr. F. A., ....-.------- -- XXVII, 19, 60 

Goppert, Heinrich Robert, Contributions of, 
to paleobotany. ...412, 414, 415, 416, 418, 
419, 421, 422, 423 
, Rank of, as a paleobotanist . .368, 369, 411 
pOROtch Of 28 ccicjcceswaciekiceiecerccu 373 

Gore, Prof. J. Howard....... esaeteceseeeee XVII, 6 
Grand Cafion of the Colorado ... 118, 234 
Marais ...........000.0...., sss 207 
Portage Bay, Lake Superior ........ 203 
Rapids, Wis., Potsdam sandstone.... 224 
TORY SG esas vaeceae'aeacticd. comseaccas 397 

; investigations into the Car- 
boniferous floraof France. 424 
Grandfather Bull Falls.......... Baciacisicciimbe 194 

Granger, E., on coal plants at Zanesville, 

OWI0 ee ceria aie eas alisnicrevant cencenterardiocien es 404 
Granites studied microscopically... - 213 
Grant County, Wisconsin, sandstone....... 255 
Gray, Asa, on the geographical distribution 

Of Plantes cose cece sensimacetieuceeuvaes 366, 436 

Gray wackes ... 210, 231, 232, 234 

Great Basin, Glaciers on mountains of -. 842 
Salt Lake, Sheep Rock............... 84 
Green River series ......-.........- 2. 249, 252; 254 
Greenstones studied miscroscopically...-.. 214 
Greywackes. (See Graywackes .) 
Grisebach, A. H. R., on the geographical dis- 
tribution of plants ..................... -. 866 

Griswold, W. T 

Guy 06, Ae ec eaielone de baeeie niacin ersistonec 

Gymmosperms .........2...00000ceeeeeseeee 
Hackett, Merrille........22.....0.000. c20e 7 
Hagen, K. G., on the origin of amber...... 403 
Hague, Arnold................2002.--- XX, 216, 221 
, cited on Mount Hood glacier ...... 339 

; Yellowstone National Park Survey. 15-19 

fag hits D Wee c anion saewiewsmetis onsejccsnsicer oes 28 
Hall, C.W .-.... t eateie eieiSaiciatis 26, 28, 197, 201, 202, 208 
, Prof. James; conference on map..... 39 

, Report of,on fossil plants 

of Fremont’sexpedition 417 
, W. H., on artesian wells............-. 151 
Hallock, Dr. William............. XXVIII, 15, 16, 62 
Happer, John §..... -... cece eee cen e ee eee 7 
TIA OS, 2G Wiscnccte sarin sania vine wevectan isis 214, 236 
Hayden, E. E., U. 8. N., Diagrams prepared 
DY sepiet sex Ree Hoc eete su 42, 58, 442 
DPR Vi seca cecedeeicse cess XXJ, 202, 377 
; administrative report... 28-30 
» on glaciers..........-.-. 344 
Heer, Oswald, Contributions of, to paleo- 
; botany ........2..0. wen. 419, 424 
; geographical distribution of plants.. 366 
, Rank of, as a paleobotanist......... 368, 369 
» Sketeh Of: cccewcwsvcecwaicee 378 
Heliobatis beds .. 252 
Helaletes 2scexe seen seoeesege cess - 255 
Henry Mountain sandstone, Utah...-...... 235 

Herodotus on the meaning of fossil shells 386,398 

Hester, W. B ......---..-. wibelwichp clara ieiaceemets 13 
Heyl, A.B. 14 
Highter.......---------.. 413 
Hillebrand, W. F ......-..0-.0..02. 20-0 XXIV. 46 
Hillera, SK ccc scncceccinnisweteeweseveedens §8 
Hind limbs of Dinocerata. . - -300-302 
Hippuris, Supposed fossil 396, 401 

460 INDEX. 
Page. Page. 
Historical review of paleobotanical dis- Irving, Prof. R. D., on an investigation of 
CONOR Y -<iccinlasuinednisiaitiestasaewcoaee sae 368 the Archean formations of the North- 
Hiteheoek; Pre. Th cc cnwakonensccnenes XXVIII, 35 western States .......-..-22.-0-eeeeeeee: 175-242 
, E., on terraces 112 | Ishpeming .-..... 
Hoff, K. E. A. von, on petrified wood --.-..-- 402 | Isoetes........ 
Hotfmian; Ce¥ esscenceesasaceossesdeceveces Ives’s expedition .--..........2..-----0-2-- 382 
OUD): veleie sie han tesrconadseine? s 
Holman, age cee 0 RNS GCE Sans ¥>) Jackson County, Wisconsin, sandstone.... 235 
Holmes, W. H., on glaciers - cs aE nd ee a 15,16 
Bole rccrs as : al Si ie Foaacth Taco; Hrm est aciscasevecswasse snr seescences 43 
Hook, Robert, sete Peete ven neme 393 Jaeger, Georg Friedrich, Contributions of, 
ure Oo oar ee ee eS 
t GOD OtANY eocnmrasenirieen Geese We 406 
Hooked Spits, The, produced by wave ac- ee SMa kcke eae 998 999 
HON esis tee i fe oo 95-96 | se Davis Peak MLACIOR: co cee sonia seiaes 842, 343 
Hookers: 3: D., = a geographic distribu- gna Jefferson County, Wisconsin...........-.-. 199 
jas on ja ones ib it cee f ae 41 John, Dr. J. F., on amber .-.-...--.--.------ 403 
a8 Pa eobotanica contributions of ... 2 TOL MGOH LAG peck tect actremie te aeteea it XXxvI, 51 
Hopkins, W., cited as to current power -..- 89 W.D X1x, 30, 31,32 34, 315 
SPN a ihe in einsmimietesminie sate 9 BU, U1, Oey OF, 
Hornblende-gabbro Motined onsinkchaseatias Jukes, Prof. J. B., cited on schist........--. 241 
er ae cic tge een car Saad sig | Julien, A. A., clted.-........-....----.102, 244, 215 
Min PRG Ny MOUND seaie ve stats steve as Juneau County, Wisconsin...........-.---- 223 

Hunt, T.S., on geologic formations ....188, 196, 203 
Haron, Lake..181, 185, 186, 189, 190, 195, 196, 204, 
210, 216, 218, 224, 225, 226, 
227, 228, 230, 231, 236, 237 

Huronian areas, Investigations in .-.. -.-.. 187 
; The original, of Murray 
and Logan --- 187 
formation ......... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, _ 

188, 190, 194, 195, 196, 

199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 

205, 206, 209, 2:0, 211, 

212, 215, 216, 218, 220, 

222, 228, 224, 225, 226, 

227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 

234, 236, 237 

.Metamorphism in.... 241 

Hutton, J.; Plutonian theory. . 
Hyatt, Prof. Alpheus ..-.--.....-..2-----.. 54 

Hydro-mica-schists studied microscopically. 212 
HS Ops0ds: anieceencsucecocesceecuseeaaecs 255 
FISTaAch US sce cnecssencrseccincnwece scien 255 
Ice pyramids, Glacial ..........---2..----- 320, 321 

TONLUCS .--- eee eee cece eee cence ce nes 323 
Ice-work the shore wall.....-..,.....-----+ 109 

Iddings, J.P .-15,18, 19, 216, 221 
Tllustrations accompanying sketch of paleo- 

Dotan ns. cjsiswaricseacoeuunierstcnnise serpent 361 
Imperatus on the diluvian origin of fossil re- 
mains 391 

Indigenous theory of fossil plants. .395, 396, 426, 427 

Interdependence of botany andpaleobotany. 366 
parts in beach forma- 

iO saceneyoweecisetuas 83, 87 

Tnterrelations of geology and biology ...... 363 

Invertebrate paleontology.....---.....-.--+ 363 
Investigation of Northwestern Archean 

formations, Scope of ...--.....2..---.25.- 181 

Iron River silver belt ......--..--.--.s0--06 228 

Trrigation by artesian wells ...... .-....... 
Irving, Prof. R. Di cccscsvercvecwistsceseeses xxIt 
; administrative report... 24-28 

Jussieu, Adrien de, mothod of... -423, 431, 435 

,A.L., Method of.......-..---. 423, 431, 434 
Antoine de, on the exotic character 
of the coal 
plants of Saint 
ts Chaumont ... 397 
possible extinc- 
tion of plants. 398 
Jussieu, Bernard de, Arrangement by, of the 
plants in the garden of the Trianon...-.. 425 
Kame, The, or Osar, contrasted with shore 
THUG OS vp jacs 2 cisheisiew cacinssiarawe: pesleciocciniceisGaeiinicie 121 
Karl, Anton ............-.---.+--XVIU, 9, 44, 45, 46 
Kautz, General August V., found glaciers 
on Mount Rainier ...-..........-222---.. 334, 335 
Keller, H., cited on formation of beaches .-. 77 
Kentmann, Johannes, on leaf-incrustations 
TD TULA o se canisicececeesiane: sacieesemeenjecee 389 
Kerr, Mark B... raat 13 
. -- XVI, 4,5 
Kettle River sevseess 197 
Keweenaw Point, Michigan ...... 223, 228, 234, 235 
Keweenawan rocks .-.... 182, 184, 185, 195, 201, 202, 

203, 218, 214, 215 
Kieser, Dietrich Georg, on the structure of 

coniferous W00d....-.....0.-..200- ee eee ee 402 
King, Clarence 47 
; Mount Shasta glacier -.... 329 

pe MOUN Gs soe.cc5-tereisaisinte teedenacindce’ ale 314 
Kingfisher Lake.............. 186, 207, 208, 210, 234 
Kircher, A.; theory of the origin of fossils. 390 
Kirehner Dik eesenceeceewesesteenaacccecs 382 
Klein, Balthasar, on petrified wood........ 389 
, Rational views of ....... 393 

Knife Lako..........--... 
Konwakiton glacier.......--.....2.2..2.025 

Kotzebue Sound glaciers --.............-... 354 
Kriiger, Johann Gottlob, on vegetable fos- 

i 403 
Kundmann J. C., Rational views of, on the 

nature of fossils..............0.. 02. c0ee 394 

INDEX. 461 
Page. Page. 
Kurr, Johann Gottlob, on the Jurassic flora Leibnitz, G. W., on the nature of fossils.... 394 
of Wiirttemberg .............0...000..... 416 , The “Protogwa” of .............. 399 
Kutorga, S.; contributions to paleobotany. 415 | Leidy, J., Wyoming fossils +251, 255 
Lemuravis: yepcsiis ee vos ve dc .c: wpedcoweates 255 
Lachmund, F., on the cause of petrifaction. 390 Leonhard, K.C. von .........22..eecceceeeee 400 
Lake, Agamok ....... 222... ..c eee eee eee 207 | Lepidodendron.............22. 0. c2..2.e 433, 438 
, Basswood. 205, 207, 208 established by Sternberg.... 428 
, Big Stone. § PRR cece ccccmenn doom 421 
Bonneville ........... Lepidophytes ..........2...2.cccceeseeee eee 438 
; An island of .. Lepidosteus...... 2... ....22.002 cece sees 255 
, cliffs and terraces of .-.98, 99,110 | Lesley, J. Peter; conference on map....... 39 
3 Cup Butto .....2... 2.22... 96 | Lesquereus, Leo, Collection from........... 57 
# PIE OF a dada de wcdadarmn 98 , Contributions of, to paleo- 
shore; map........... 20000. 95 botany..... 416, 420, 424, 445, 446 
Clear Water ......-.....2..ccceeceeeee 234 , Rank of, as a’ paleobotan- 
AUIS scrcrcnina vaio Lew rauaiy ewetrces 223 ISte: cesweescusensearsned 368, 369 
Gogebie .........00. 0c eee 194, 195, 196 Sketch of ..........2.22-. 3768 
, Great Salt, Sheep Rock...... eaters 84 | Lesser, Friedrich Christ., on the tropical 
Huron - 181, 185, 186, 189, 190, 195, 196, 204, 210, facies of fossil plants .............-...2..- 397 
216, 218, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 236, 237 | Lherozite defined 217 
, Kingfisher.............. 186, 207, 208, 210, 234 | Lhwyd, Edward, on fossil plants .......... 389, 425 
gp RDO: erent sees 186, 207, 208, 210, 227, 234 , on the origin of fossils... 340, 391 
; Michigan; rectification of coast- ‘map. 103 | Libavius, Germ theory of, for the formation 
pM OTROS ec5s icc peinsoe Visecroceisios aanslstaed 197 of fossils 389, 390 
4 MONO: coavadactaxasss 314, 315, 316,317 | Library ....2. 2.2.2. 0-20 ee cece ee cece eceeeee XXIV 
pMOO8C we cea denies earecimsnice ce ccsees 213) |) Toigulatae s.2csc.0c evade earns ieeces cn 433, 438, 446 
DAN suing en vedo waserenrenw nd 233 | Limbs of Dinocerata, The fore ........... 298-300 
SNotthitecs: cha scuccucer ecanecowees 204 , The hind.. . 300-302 
Numakagon. .:.ci0ccessccesvacsescecs 198 | LapOStOn68).cccceccdeneneewe : 218 
of the Woods....... ae 182, 205,208 | Limnohyus...-.......-00-seeeeee 255 
,Ogishkiemuncie .................... 207: | Tot vOFelis  cates:acats crersrcap, oa seaweueenaye ees ale 255 
Ontario, Map of Braddock’s Bay...... . ~94 | Lincoln Peak; Newadac. 2c o..cseavscreneens 342 
POWERS! ine acca tesweieccaslaanenen 314 | Lindley and Hutton; classification of fossil 
(ARON is cjassista- seietantinaisalnraruatsrates sees 233 plants............. 429, 430 
, Saganaga -. --+-203, 204, 205, 207, 215 ; fossil flora of Great 
» Seneca, deltas.............-..----2--5 108 Britain 2.022000 2% 408 
shores, The topographic features of... 69 on the mode of growth 
Superior............ 182, 184, 192, 196, 201, 208, of coal plants.....-. 400 

204, 206, 207, 209, 211, 215, 
217, 218, 231, 233, 234, 235 

, Head of; map........---...- “94 
, trough synclinal ............ 198 
TAO G’ ofasoic1 5:3. cjaieye|atwiniogeyatbre oie Sloss eusioieimreie 814 
, Teal, Michigan. . 232 
Lamination of glaciers .. 318 
‘Land sculpture, composite asian of. 5 75 
terrace, Tho...... eee eee eee 118 
Landslip cliff, The ......-..22-22.0--ceeeeee 115 
Landslips in Marsh Valley, Idaho.......... 120 
Lange, Nicholas, on the origin of fossils... 390 
, indigenous theory of fossil plants... 396 
Lasanlx,, As Von 2200 ccs sce cecwnccwsiecnces 219, 220 
DIPULON AD cia niches siseiicieiee Fenle, CGecduicces 185 
Lawrence, P. H...........- 219 
Leakage, Lateral, in wells 157 
Le Conte, J., cited on Lyell glacier.....-. 325, 326 
Leevining Creek glacier......-.....---.--0: 316 

Lehmann, J. G., on the supposed fossil Aster 
montanus.... -.--------- 396 

, Services of, to stratigraphic 
Geology.-...--..---eeceee 299 

Leibnitz,G.W.; great physical changes in 
the earth....... ..--.--- 398 

, on exotic character of fossil 
plants....-...-.--..-.--- 396 

, Skeptical views of. . .409, 410 
Lines ofdescentinthedevelopmentof plants, 452 
Linnean system of botanical classification, 433, 434 
Lister, Martin, Rational views of, on the na- 

turevof fossil®: sicccccseccs weas es vee gence: 294 
Lithanthracites: 202. saslencecsssceceneceees 427 
TiMODUb aie 6 oles ccc eiowe ee eined weisnie 426 
Lithocalmi ... 426 
Lithocarpi . 426 
Lithodendron <2. 02 ences seeciecoscet eens 426 
Lithophylla .... 426 
Lithophylli. .- 426 
Lithophyllon . ‘ a 426 
TAthOv by. b68). cceicsncss-cyaswctadaaisie niela-se annie sicrwlosevers 426 
Lithoxs thes cccisccoveceaiecd wt mmaivicnsweieacemeie 427 
LATOR Ot ween Reeder 425, 426 
Little Falls, Minn.... ~-197, 212, 218 
Little Fork River 206 
Little Iron River, Michigan; graywacke... 234 
Littoral current ........-..0.000 0. --ee eee eee 85 

deposition... -- 90-100 
12) 02) (6) | See ee ee ee 80-85 
transportation.........-. 85-90 
Lizard district, Cornwall, England ........ 240 

Logan, Sir W.E. ; geological map of Canada 
CibEM werrscncec ziemecielesier 2 181, 188, 189, 226 
, Murray and 

462 INDEX. 
Page, Page. 
Loop, The, in wave action....-.......----- 91,95 | Martins, C. ¥., Contributions of, to paleo- 
Los Angeles County, California; artesian DOtany:: ss vecceceese esses 405, 428 
PONS ay veered eaeaee eae ewes Hee 151 ; Classification of fossil plants .... 428 
Loss of flow in wells (see Decline of flow).157-165 | Maryland, work in 8 
Levene, Dt Bo ven qewws aeeeescy 40 | Massalongo, Abrams, Contributions of, to 
Loxalophodon........----+--+-- 251 paleobotany......- 423 
Luc, J. A. dO ..2 eee e cece eee eee ee cere e ee 219 , Rank of, as a paleobotanist. .368, 369 
Luidius (see Lhwyd.) , Sketch of.... ... --.-.-.-..-- 379 
Luther, Martin, the first to assign the flood Matthiolus on petrified wood .---888, 390, 391 
as the cause of petrifactions......--...-.. 391 | Measurement of flow in artesian wells ...-.. 159 
Lycopodiacem........-...-.-.-- 3 AEG: | Med WNOS i ood tain aosecioe aeeee wish 446 
Lycopodines ...-.....--+---+-- = 433 | Meehan, Thomas; cited on Alaskan glaciers 353 
Lycopodinesw, Development of the --- 446 | Melville, Dr. W. H -...-0---2. 22-02 XXV, 48 
Lycopodiolithes.....-..-.---------00-----+ 427,428 | Menominee, Marquette and, iron-bearing 
Lycopodites: .-.-0<cc<ssseewsciseesscseeeis 428 POSION srsdscccwccueees 189-194, 234 
Lycopodium ...-...---.----.-+--20- 2. eee eee 438 190 
Lyell glacier ......---..--. 0. sees eee eee 322 rocks... 183, 187, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 
323 203, 204, 207, 210, 211, 218, 228 
LOUIE ccaiicienacaatmiitnt tak dese $14 .815|, Merced River. oc caiscedsincaieciardiacagmeeidondk 315 
ptr Charles visciccteisas wevederstieed eee 879 | Merret, Christopher, Rational views of, on 
the nature of fosslls......-----.----.----- 394 
McGee, W J...- -+-.+-XVIII, XXIU, XXVIII, 417 | Merriam, W.N .----..--.--- 24, 25, 27, 28, 188, 197, 
, Administ ative report ....-.. 34-41 201, 202, 203, 205 
McKays Mountain, Lake Superior ......... 203 | Mesabi Range ...---.....-.-.2-24- 197, 204, 205, 206 
MeWinney, Rei ©: ances cccecciacieccean-ceccncees 5 | Metamorphism in the Huronian .........-. 241 
McLaughlan, Maj. J....--- 23 | Mica schists studied microscopically....... 212 
McLennan’s Landing .......- 225 | Microscopic studies --... 
Macomb’s Expedition .... 382 | Michigamme Lake ....... 
MEAMIS ONY WASH ic « ceisineintens ssi el eioiacpuaiaiotostes 223 MIHO)sc sede AGS ee Ssake ees 
Malitowah, Minn .....-... .22.2-2---..----- 233 | Mille Lacs County, Minnesota 
Major, Johann Daniel, first to mention true Tak Guscseiud: oer odsse Sstvlaces 
leaf impressions in Miller, Hugh 
TOCK o2e.s seteeses 389,425 | Mineral production of the United States...-xxvll 
, Rational views of ..389, 393 | Mining districts, Survey of ....-.......---- XXIV 
Mammals, Gigantic Dinocerata ............ 243 statistics and technology, Division 
Mankato, Minn ...........2....00e00e0eeee 202 OO Becta dre tepioecoe enc otar tart Reet oheals tee Ae 
Mantell, G. A.; ‘Fossils of the South Minnesota River .....-. 
DOWNS cnccseecinsroedats ieeiseewemeehes te 405 Valley .... 
Manuscript geologic map United States... . 35 | Miohippus series..-.............-..-------. 
maps used in forming United Miquel, F. A. G.; monograph of the Cyca- 
States geological map.... ... 38 CACC eo:e sees retrevaincieteeiete vemnaeeee ees 415 
Maps, Canadian......-.....2..-..-..--22225 182 | Mississaugi River ...... 2... -.-------..- 182, 197 
used in forming United States geolo- Mississippi River......-...2..-2-. 187, 197, 205, 210 
@ical Map scscessscs ce cesses eee 37 | Missouri River modified by artesian wells.. 150 
Marathon County, Wisconsin ..........-... 194 | Mitchell, Dakota..--.......-...-0 -- 280 
Marcou,.J 2B ssecie sicnigiePageis scaceaGiatsices 50 , Prof. Henry, cited on tide-lands... 77 
jPROE: DF cwieinneice ve been Shdcdeaetoeee 54,378 | Modified system of botanical classification 
Mare’s tail (Hippuris), supposed fossil .-... 396 PHOPOSEd) se cwcsSessnses saws semen. Bese 436-437 
Marion, Prof. A.F 3841 | Moering, Paul Gerard, on the indigenous 
Marck, W. von de 424 theory of fossil plants ..........2..2-2-..- 396 
Marquette .and Menominee iron-bearing Mono Basin 328 
BOTLCO 2c aweseaseecnsscseees 189-194 Dake glacier 2:2). icecesasieceteeaecss 314, 315 
County, Michigan..............- 235 | Monochlamydew.........-..--.....--. 433 
Rogion....183, 187, 189,190, 192, 193,195, | Moenocotyledone ..s0.+ o2ccccensaew eu cena re 429, 433 
196, 198, 203, 204, 207, 210, 211, , Development of the 448 
212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 224, | Monopetala .....-.-...2.. 002 ee ee eee 433 
225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 285 | Montana Division, The .....-.............-. 9 
Marsh, Prof. 0, C..-.-.--.-.062-2--20-- XXv, 11,12 | Montaniri first announced potency of cur- 
; administrative report. ..49-50 rents with waves.......----..--0--eeeeeee 88 
; gigantic dinocerata.. 243-302 | Montreal River.........-...-...-. 195 
Marshall Hill, Wis... -.--..------------2-- 228 | Moody County, Dakota 200 
Marsh Valley, Idaho, landslipsin ........-. 120 | Moose Lake, Wisconsin .......-..- .2-.222.. 213 
MAT IIG: sisesejascercsorcisioe tiers Aaisie diane de 432, 438,446 | Moraines .......--..----...-----0-- 120, 121, 312, 321 
WON di Obevienscamrereasercinatsinnarecconaien 446 | Morand,J.F.C., Rational views of, on the 
Martin, William; ‘'Petrificata Derbiensia” 402 HAturciof fossils: oo cscs ec aeas dsccwmmeses 394 


INDEX. 463 

Page. Page. 

MOPI6TG i 33sec ccccecisncecack hoemecemenesne 245 | Nicollet County, Minnesota ....... 202, 223, 238, 235 
Morris, John; catalonna of British fossils .. 415 | Nilsson, Sveno, on the fossil plants of 

Morrison County, Minnesota ...... ....... 200, 208 SWCD oes sy re wie ere siaciciewnce cones, «0-403, 405 

Moscardus, Ludovicus, Rational views of, on Nipigon Bay, Lake Superior; sandstone.... 234 

the nature of fossils Nisqually River runs from a glacier........ 335 

Mongeot,: Avec jecsauauas segueviineensieinaensa PIACIOD cousvcecteves decaceus cue 836 

Mountain Lake graywacke .... 
Mount Baker glaciers ........... 

PI MOLOD sa 1s:n civieiesasbiele: tyarshicvesnarbewree 

Hood glacier....... 
Mount Humphreys........ 
Jefferson glacier... 

PR Fe areas ncrcwausuan apavalacese Miaaedans 


Moran glaciers ..........22-2...26-- 
Rainier glacier .- 

FUGUE Sensis sees 
BIACIORS 3 .c.4c.cccscaeenecceeed 
Shasta glacier .....-........2.-..-. 329-334 
Ted SUOW sessis w2eeciseessss 323 
St. Elias glaciers... 848, 353 
Tachoma. (See Rainier.) 
WiHI6Y .)coconeseccc nseceacheenes 314 
Whittlesey quartzite............... 232 

Muir, John, on California glaciers. .... 324, 325, 826 
rate of flow of Mount Mc- 

Clure glacier -....--..... 322 

Minster, Count of; ‘ Beitiige zur Petrefac- 
tenkunde” 412 
Murlin, A. E 57 
Murray, A., cited on Huronian 188 
Murray and Logan.....-..-...-..+-.- 187 
MUPPISRY SD! (5:00. .uoseaeeawawiae geceewis on; ustaiels 220 

Mylius, G. F., on the diluvian origin of fos- 
sil remains .......---.--..0eeee- eee eeenes 
Myrrh; supposed fossil... 

Nathors!,G.; investigations into the fossil 

flora of Sweden ....-.-...-..----- 2.2.20 424 
Natural method in botanical classification... 431 
Nature-printing, Invention of .....--.....-. 380 
Naturselbstdruck, Invention of .-.........- 380 
Nau, B.S. von, Contributions of, to paleo- 

botany ..--.-.- 2 mia icine raat 404 
Naumann, C. F 219 
Neebish Island, Saint Mary’s River, quartz- 

ALO: 2 ii5.d crc vsie winrdSinislacewicisicic,Siebigine sii eeceysyaier 231 
Neptunian theory of Werner..........----. 398 
Nervation of leaves, Study of - .-.380, 412, 419, 420 
Nerves, The cranial ...........-.--..--0.--- 285 
i 318 
Newberry, Dr. J. S....--...------2--- eee eee 54, 369 

; observed glaciers in Oregon .-.. 341 

, Paleobotanical investigations of 424 

; Sketehi of..-5222ss23seseceesics 381 

New England Division, The.........----.-. 3,4 
Lisbon, Wis.; Potsdam sandstone 220, 223, 235 
Ulm, Minn. wi. cn0 2 cc socniceanedescnss 200, 202 
Newman, W.G 6 

Noachian deluge, Fossils supposed to bethe 
remains left by the ....390, 398 
, Phillips on the effect of 

Noerr, A 

Noggerath, Jacob, on the mode of growth 

of coal plants ...2.. 0.2.00 cece eect eens 400 
SV RR OTAIR i pci cokceee cn cemamdaun 428, 430, 447 
Nomenclature and classification of fossil 

Number of species of fossil plants, Evidence 
furnished by the .....---.....-.. 439 
reported at different dates. .. 407, 416, 417, 
421, 422, 424, 428 

Oak Openings :cs00 sete cers acde cose 100 
Ogishkiemuncie Lake...-.....02......-.2-4 207 
Oken, L., on petrified wood.. 402 
Oldhamia 444 
Olivine-diabase dcfined.............-.-.2-55 215 
Oliviue-gabbro defined.... 215 
Ontonagon River sandstone..........---... 235 
Oqnirrh Range, Utah ......-.....-.--. «+++ 110 
Orbit of particle in wave motion .....-.... 82 
Oreodon beds ............0-+--008 wees “254 
OVreoCyOn eosc qecpesecedescend. 2ccejesseeesa 255 
Orlebar glacier, Alaska . is 352 
Orohippus oaalslacisieworaeiwais Seiejais  SLON! 
Orthoclase-diabase chimed Jlwsmeeeeioden aes 215 
Orthoclase-gabbro defined... 215 
Osar or Kame, The........ 121 
Osmunda ....-..-...6- 428 
; supposed fossil.......-...-..... "396, 402 
OWEN DD cic aise Seat leet inte cn 206 
; @ source of compilation 183 
Owen's Dakeccocc 2c cncacninenpeccartheenasce 314 
Rive? ccetacauccencncceciensechees 315 

Pacific, Divisien of the, administrative re- 
POTCOF wc. acxtos Secete ore asemenes seek 47-49 
Packwaukee, Wis., Potsdam sandstone..... 224 
Pal PSY OPSi2..acs:sicasieemwaetanesac cede eeetes 255 

Paleobotanical discovery, Historical review 
OF Actorarciviniecwioreeivinissrcinttoiectdanrecisinierne eres 368 
Paleobotany, Compendium of ... -- 368 
, Future prospects of.......... 365 

hitherto studied as distinct 
from botany proper.....--.- "367 
, Interdependence of botanyand 366 

, List of the principal culti- 
Wators Of secewsceesserexecaee 369 

Need of a condensed exhibit 
OL icciaioy ths eistel aerwimonaiais iste feiatarwince 364 
, On the term ..... 363 

464 INDEX. 
Paleobotany, Pioneers in .--..-..--.-----+-- 401. | Pilularia.s.2i.0.cciccweciceceses 
, Sketch of, by L. F. Ward ....357-452 | Pinitessuccinifer (amber-tree) 

, The pre-scientific period of. .-. 
scieutific period of....-.- 399 

Paleozodlogy, Need of the term 

Palladreau Islands.....-......- 231 
Palmacites.... ..-....2-+------ 427 
Palmer mine, Michigan........-.....--+---- 232 

Papers accompanying annual report of the 
Directobecees neers 
Parker Creek glacier -- 

CARON: ..jaiste si cicjnionicicjase seteciewss 

Parkinson, James; classification of fossil 
Plants ics cc scosene iss 426 

“Organic remains of a 
: former world,”..-... 401 

Parlatore, Filippo, Contributions of, to paleo- 
Botany xacinesinesecemtsacanes. aceuende 415 

Parsons, James, on the petrified fruits of 
Sheppey ..---------.--- 397, 413 

, Rational views of, on the 
nature of fossils ..-..-.- 394 
Pattison, 8.R; on Fossil Botany.......-..- 422 
Peale, Dr. A.C........ .2.20.--e- XX, XI, 16, 28-30 
Pearson, Frank M........-..---------+---- 6 
Pelican Lakes ccecsivezcdsduesceaswascesescse 194 
Rivet vse es sseserseeeeenee ces 194 
Pelvis of Dinocerata, The.......-..-----... 300 
Penokee belt............----- 193, 195, 198, 204, 207, 

212, 218, 215, 218, 
227, 228, 229, 230 

Gap, Wisconsin .-........-.- 222, 223, 232 

Gogebic -187, 192, 193, 198, 203 

jron belt, The....-...-... 194-196 

Perid otites...-issec ec siewiees cat sen sceweeee 217 

Petrifaction, Early theories of the cause 

OE sass Ra pokcemnia Senna bien Our. doe Roun weno 389, 390 
Petrifying juice.............-----.-- ---+-- 390 
Petrographical studies ......-.--..------+++ 209 

Petzholdt, Alexander, Contributions of, to 

Phanogais .... 
Pharerogams ........-------. -++eeee- isleies 
PHU PS) Tey A wisse Seicscsnsisinteavrenisteccnsrevteeeen 221, 241 
; ‘Geology of Yorkshire”.... 408 
, on the geological effects of 
the deluge............-... 408 
Photographic work. .....-..--.-----.--+.-..XXXV¥ 
PHY es sg2cs,conccaeashaws vie oneece ness 428 
, Objections to the term . 413 
Physiotypy, Invention of......--.... 380 
PHytobibNe soossieeecevewcseee cece: 426 
Phytogeny, Problems of.......--..-.---.+-- 452 
Phytogeography, Recent progressin....... 366 
Py tothe sccenesecsuetesesients 
Phytopaleontoldgy .. 
Phytotypolithi ....-...-.--........ 
Pigeon Point, Lake Superior 
River, Minnesota, graywacke....... 234 

Pinus regarded by Dr. John as the amber- 

MTC irs sc, sa,Seshecee ys fevc deleted “ai i/elziaisinlmiele iete'e 403 
Pioneers in pateobotany....-... 401 
Pipestone or Catlinite ..........- 201 
Plagioclase-augite rocks ....... 215 

-diallage rocks .......-..-.-.--- 215 
-hypersthene rocks .....-...---. 215 
Plant life of the globe, Different points of 
view from which 
to contemplate 
the ..-........ 442, 443 
, Geognostico-botan- 
icalviewofthe.. 439 

, Tabular exhibit of the. 
Plants, Descent of .....--..--.---2.020-2-0- 
, Geological periods favorable, or the 
reverse, to the preservation of...450, 451 

Pliny“on. fossils: ...i. s0.secc eas vewcetsecwers 386 
Plot, Robert, on the nature of fossils 390 
Plutonian theory of Hutton........... 398 
POMCIES yo acumeeeto cst oseioesiedadcetse 427, 428 
Pokegama Falls..........-...---..---- 187, 205, 206 
Pokorny, A - 381 
Polleys, T. A 28 
POO Blinc uacy vngeesodes cameo Yee eaGee 433, 450 
Polypodium, Supposed fossil ..-....--.---.. 402 
Pomel, M. A.,outheJurassic floraof France. 420 
Populus nigra; supposed fossil......,---..- 396 
Porcupine Mountains ............ 222. -- 228, 234 
Porous beds for artesian wells ............. 136 

Porphyries, Felsitic, studicd microscopic- 

Port Arthur, Lake Superior .. 
Portage Bay Island, Minnesota 
Post-lacustrine deformation................ 

Potsdam sandstone, 182, 194, 196, 199, 201, 202, 220, 
223, 226, 229, 234, 236, 237 

Powell, Lieut. J. W., British Columbia..... 352 
Maj. J. W., cited...--..2.....-020.. 150 
; thickness of strata in 
the several forma- 
RHO Bie siseriersajeisienee see 442 
, Suggested diastrophic. 118 
Prairie River Falls, Minn......... 205, 225, 226, 233 
Pre-scientific period of paleobotany ....... 385 
Presqu? Plexi. sicdemiesisienscisseds seaeemses 217, 218 
Princeton College has Wyoming fossils... 252 
Pritehett, Prof. H.8...... 22... .2.... Seeiesic 12 
Problems in correlation of N.W. Archean. 185 
Prognostic cstimate of flow in wells........ 159 
Progressive development in plant life, Lind- 
ley and Hut‘on’s opposition to the doc- 
GTING Of sie. aercamiseiorse. rants sieie a. ered 409 
Prosser, C. 8S... 52 
Protosalvinia .. 446 
Psarolithes .......... 402 
Pteris, supposed fossil ................2. 402 
Pterophy lum :jcccseawcsumeed sees cag 447 
Publications of the Survey XXXI 
S80 sceek ean XXXII 
Exchange of.... XXXIV 
ss 195 

Heuks cee aes ems 214, 215 



Pumpelly, Prof. R., discovered glaciers on 
Flathead Mountains ..........--...000- 6+ 347 
Puyallup River runs from a glacier ...... . 835 
Quartz fragments, Enlargements of........ 218 
Quartzite series, Baraboo, The... - 198, 199 

of Southern Mi rt: 


and Southeastern Da- 

kota, The .............. 199 
Quartzites and sandstones studied micro- 
soopically...........-..0.06-- 209 
, Huronian, Genesis of........... 236 
of Chippewa and Barron Coun- 
ties, Wisconsin.........-.... 197 
of Upper Wisconsin Valley.... 194 
Quaternary ...... a tia ta reson holed 200 
geology, Division of; adminis- 
trative Teport 1.00.0 sdo0- ome 20-24 
lakes of Great Basin studied by 
G. K. Gilbert. .......--...--.- XxIL 
QUIN WOrts oe 2: sicciasciceciecidceendecccamsietic 438 
Quinnesec Falls, Big and Little .......-..-. 190 
Rainfall cece sence ales oo soa teswleaweececuun, OAT 
, Adequacy of, measured by capac- 
ity of strata .... .....---2....0-- 151 
Rankine, W. J. M., on wave motion ........ 80 
Rash Creek Cafion moraine..............-.. 328 
Raulin, Victor, Paleobotanical contributions 
Of acc cates ete s pcceatadeee rene ies 421 
Raumer, Carl von, on vegetable fossils eiigees 403 
Recognition of ancient shores, The ........ 122 
Rectification of shores........... bees este 103 
Red River Valley ..-...--..---.2.--+eeee-- 199, 200 
snow, Mount Shasta........-....----+- 323 
Redstone, Minnesota ..-...-------+..-- 200, 228, 224 
Redwood .........--. 022002 ceeeeeneeeeneee 448 
Reed Wi Mi imciaiaiiacacineianisnommnaemccies 11,12 
Reid, Thorburn ......-..-..sc0-ss0.---eeee 14 
Renault, B., Investigations into the car- 
poniferous flora of France.......-.--. ... 424 

Renshawe, J. H ............--.-2000----- eee 

Report of Die! Director .....-.----.-.. 
Reservoir or fountain head, The ....-...... 
Restoration of Dinocerata skeletons .. 
Reutilization of water in irrigation... 
Rhabdocarpus.....--.-----+--------- i 
Rhin, Lucas, on the nature of fossils........ 
Rhizolithus .....---.-.---------------00-ee- 
Rhode’s ‘‘ Pflanzenkunde der Vorwelt”.... 
Ribboned structure of glaciers ............ 
Ribs of Dinocerata.....-..--. 0200-222 005- 
Ricksecker, HE. .......----202-0ceeceeeeeenee 9 
Ridges of diverse origin contrasted ....... 120, 121 
Ritter, Mount....-...--------eeeeeeeeenees 

River terraces ......-------- 
Roche-4-Crier, Wisconsin . 
Rocky Mountain District. ..........- 

Roemer, Friedrich Adolph, Contributions 
of, to paleobotany 
Ropers; He Disececec. ssogeeecasenneen so ses 

Rominger, C ............ccceeeccees aoe -.-191, 218 
, Map of Michigan. seacnsccreenae 181 
Rosinus, Michael Reinhold, on extinct spe- 
OIE. s snnccummncnid lene me ecules 398 
Rational views of, on the nature of 
POSSIG: oss sine nesecseincsmsiens 394 
R assler, E, A., Contributions of, to pa- 
leGbotan ys scseiecncservaadetackeecane 413 
Rove Lake .ee 2 scssueveceseossusenvese.ouse 233 
Ronillier, C., Paleobotanical contributions 
--- 420 
Rubber packing to control flow in artesian 
Russell, I.C ............. XIX, XXII, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 
, cited as to shore phenomena... 76 
,on existing glaciers of the 
United States ............. 308-355 
Russell, Scott, cited on wave motion % 80 
Rautley, F.... a. 214 
Rhythmic embankments .-...........-...-- 111 
Saganaga, Lake . 
Sache T soso cess cies 
Saginaw mine, Michigan. 
bg i: a ee 

224, 227, 231 
Saint Peter’s sandstone. .-........ 182, 220, 223, 224, 
235, 236, 237 

Salisbury, Miss C. A., cited as to artesian 
wells at Denver 
, Prof. R. D 

Salvinia i520 iiseetosadevcce oneness 
San Bernardino County, California, arte- 

sian wells 151 
San Joaquin River 315 
Sandalites.nisccscc scence eceesicneeeis cis 426 
Sandstone from Adams County,Wisconsin. 285 

Ashland County, Wis..... 235 
Baraboo River ............ 236 
Black Bay, Lake Superior. 234 
Columbia County, Wis.... 235 
Dane County, Wisconsin.. 235 
Devil’s Lake 233 
Enreka, Nev ......... - 235 
Grant County, Wisconsin. 235 
Henry Mountains, Utah... 235 
Jackson County, Wis ..-. 235 

Keweenaw Point, Mich . “934, 235 

Marquette County, Mich.. 235 
Mount Whittlesey ... 232 
New Lisbon, Wis .. - + 285 
Nicollet County, Minn .. 233, 235 
Nipigon Bay, Lake Supe- 

TOP 222isesiee seseccuecoes S84 
Ontonagon River. ... 235 
Porcupine Mountains .... 234 
Presqu’ Isle River - 234 
Saint Mary’s iver. 231 
Silver Islet Landing, i. S.. 234 

466 INDEX. ; 
Page. Page. 
Sandstone from Spurr mine ......--.....--- 232 | Selaginella arctica. .......-.-.0-+-22e-ce--ee 446 
Sandstones, Quartzites and, microscopically Selden, Hi iSiicccwsciuanerserccaeesecioee sess 4 
studied . -.....-..-..------- 209 | Selwyn, Dr. A. R.C......--..2-006 owectenien, 38 
with crystal-faceted grains— Seminaria of Kircher........ diese Siaisiaieieimiene 390 
Huronian localities........ 233 | Seneca Lake deltas 108 
Potsdam localities. ......-- 223 | Sequoia .....-.-.......-.- 448 
St. Peter’s localities. -.--.. 233 gigantea.........-. 448 
Sandy River glacier............---------+-- 340 SOMPCTVirens......-.--.- 2.2 ee eens 448 
Saporta, Marquis Gaston de, Paleobontan- Serpent River Bay...... .....-----+----+-- 188 

ical studies of,in France ..--..- 424 
, Rank of, as a paleobotanist ...... 368, 369 
, Sketch of .....---.---24 02 eee eee eee 383 

Sarayna, Torellus, Rational views of, on the 
nature of fossils........--.-----+-------- 
Sauk County, Wisconsin, rock. 

eeeeesss- 218, 214 

Sauk Valley .........------..-+ 
Sault Ste, Marie .........-..-------25-- 2+ 188 
SaGssure) wictwossseeuseecheeeea ses ea cess 219 

Sauvages, L'Abbé de, on the tropical facies 

of fossil plants 397 
Sauveur, J., on the fossil plants of Belgium 421 
Sayles, [ra wcncccciccuais se aeeriaoens veeiee XXVI, 52, 53 

Saxifraga, supposed fossil -.........-..-..-- 396 
Scarabelli, G20 cc-csuscsccsegeceesessaeeesi 379 
Schenk, August.........- --- 869 
“Sketch of -......22..2.26 382 
,Paleobotanical work of... 424 

Scheuchzer, Johann Jacob.. .....-.-. 369, 396, 426 
, Attempt of, to refer fossil to liv- 

ing plants.....-..-..-..- 896, 403, 425 
; diluvian origin of fossils ...... 391 
pSKOth, Of: sc: :scciienevecce 370 
Schimper, Wilhelm Philip............. 369, 403, 431 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany .414, 415 
pS KOtCh OFS. ccsemar mareecdinsscins 375 

Schists, ferrnginous of the Black River Val- 
-of the Upper Wisconsin Valley... 194 
Schlotheim, Ernst Friedrich, Baron von... 369, 40€ 
, Advanced views of. ...-.......- 400 

» Classification of fossil plants 
Dyccoeee cs eontictavowese eed 403,427 

, Harly contributions of, to paleo- 

botany ......-... 400, 401, 402, 404, 405 
, Sketch of .. 370 
Schmeltzkopf, E.-...-.2...22eee eee eee eee ee 11 
Schréter, Johann Samuel, on the diluvian 
ovigin of fossil remains ...-..-.-..-.. -.- 392 
Schultze, Ch. Fr., indigenous theory of fos- 
bil PLANS. ..2c.sectaeewewedioyy 396 
, Rational views of, on the nature of 
of fossils....-.....- .-----eeeees 394 
, Treatment of plant impressions by 426 
Schwatka, Lieut. F., on glaciers of Alaska... 353 
Schweigger, A. F., on vegetable fossils ..... 403 
Scientific period of paleobotany........---. 399 
Scilla, Augustinus, rational views of, on the 
nature of fossils ........-..2-.-.20..--ee- 393 
Scouring rushes. . 433 
Scratched stones.-....----..-.------.0----- 322 
Sea cliffs, Origin of ............2...--..222-- 83, 84 
Section to illustrate vertebrate life in Amer- 
machete 158 
Sond: theory of the origin of fossils......... “389, 390 
Selaginella.2iccwsjencccessececeseecsessedecsis 438 

Shaler, Prof., N.S 

Shasta, Mount, Glaciers... ......-...+-.-. 329-334 
Dhastna sos icceccteecie viscose ees scsews 329 
Shaw, Edmund ..... 1.2.2... .s. ee eee cece ee 11,14 
Sheep Rock, Great Salt Lake............--- 84 
Shepard, R. D 4,14 
Sherburne County, Minnesota. ...-....-.--- 200 
Shore current: .cs.c-eccseces cece de cesses 85, 111 
ApiEE vesniies detuned cue see nets 86, 87, 90, 98 
features, Discrimination of.....-...-- 112 

, Origin of the distribution of 
wave-wrought .........-- 101 
Shores, The recognition of ancient.... .- 122 
Shore-wall .......---..--.-------- -- 109 
Shumway, W. A ............--... 6,7 
Shutt,G. W., Administrative report. 64-66 
Sidener,- Co Bosc lcseccacccsdensclscecacecss 26 
Sierra Blanca glacier..... eislslavacheinvaiedorenstslovies 344 
Nevada, glaciers of.......-. 314, 327, 329-334 
Sigillaria ae ~ -428, 430 
Silurian, Flora of the...-...---..-. -444, 445 
Silver Islet Landing, L. S., Pandatone Se eek 234 

Simpson, Capt. J. H., Explorations of, in 
Griat Basitiesisen. 44) hecesececceesiee eer 342 
Sioux Falls, Dak......--..-2.--.2220---+-- 201 
Sketch of paleobotany, L. F. Ward..-.--.- 357-452 

the early history and subsequent 
progress of paleobotany ...---. 385 

Skull. (See Dinoceras mirabile.) 

Slate belt of the Saint Louis and Missouri 
Rivers, Minnesota.....-.....-..---------- 196 
Sleeping Bear Bluff, Lake Michigan ........93, 108 

Smith, Dr. James Edward, on the exotic 
character of fossil plants ......... 402 

, J. Lawrence..-..-..-0-22-. eee ewes 60 
, William, on the determination of the 

age of rocks by their fossils... ... 398 
Sonora Pass..........-.... ieee chceciaters sieketnta a 314 
Sorbus, supposed fossil.-..-...-........-2.- 396 
Sorby, H.C ........-..--.. 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 241 
Sonth Atlantic District .............---...- XVII 
Special study of artesian wells to be stimu- 
lated <3e.cep ua cededscidasiueductcadscascae 173 
Sperling, J., Theory of the origin of fossils. 390 
Sphzxrococcites Scharyanus ....-.....-.... 444 
‘| Sphenophyllum primevum. 445 
Sphenepteng.s ccs cvkecuxe. 428 
Spirangium ...-...-..2. 0.2.20. 22sec e eee eee 448 
Spiritus architectonicus ................-. 390 
Spit, The, formed by wave action 91-92 
Split Rock Creek ..........2. 2.022.222 ee 2 200 
Spontaneous generation, Doctrine of _...... 389 
Sprengel, Anton, on psarolithes.......-.... 408 
Da ES eee Sy hdtoas tsoeeresaawes 393 
Spurr ining SOMO iiaccwendeauececereces 232 
Mountain, Michigan.............-.. 222, 223 

Stearns County, Minnesota...............- 200, 208 

INDEX. 467 
Page. Page. 
Steffens, Heinrich, on petrified wood....... 402 | Tertiary flora of Australia, Important bear- 

, on the mode of growth of coal 

plants ....-........ aiafeecemanieaes 400 
Steinhauer, Rev. Henry, Remarkable paper 
of ‘On Fossil Reliquis," ete. 403 
; Classification of fossil plantsby. 426 
Steininger, J.,on the ‘ Pfilzisch-saur-briic- 
kische Steinkohlengebirge ” - 418 
SteleGhites ss :-1. < cicicciciesciaatieiss sia biiaicinieinee-enaycrele 426 
Steno, Nicholaus, Rational views of, on the 
nature of fossils.............-.. - 894 
Sternberg, Kaspar Maria, Graf von........ 369 
, Classification of fossil plants.... 428 

, Harly contributions of ....402, 404, 405 

; geological periods............... 428 
, on the mode of growth of, coal 
SARIS eee aransexeuicaweake 400 
» Sketch of = 871 
Stern ber gis sce ntesejsecseocieienins 447 
, Dawson's views on..........- 377, 379 
Sternum, Dinocerate ...--. evanecinguiande sme 298 
Stevens, General Hazard, gives account of 
Mount Tachoma glacier.............--..- 339 
Stigmaria ......2.02. 22.2. c eee ee eee ee 428, 430 
Stikine River, glaciers of .......... ieoeneie 349, 352 
Stockton, R., on map of Bonneville Lake... 95 
Stone-making spirit as the cause of fossils... 390 

Strabo on the meaning of fossil shells -...386, 387 

Stream cliff, The -....-.....---.-.2.-.----6+ 113 
work, The Delta........-......--. 104, 108 
Streng, A ...-...2--.22-.220e- 197, 213, 214, 215, 216 
Strong, M.; map of Wisconsin.............. 181 
Structural problems in N. W. Archean .... 183 
Stylinodon .......... a aeeecieseueliceemenes tos 255 
Submergence, emergence, and, of shores..-. 110 
Suceus Petrificus.......--..--------.------- 390 
Suckow, George Adolph, Rational views of, 
on fossil plants....-..---.-.--+-.--+-+6-- 395, 398 
Superior, Lake, bars at head of ............. 94 
Supplemental reservoirs, artesian wells .... 149 
Survey of the Cascade Range .....-.-..---- xxiii 
District of Columbia ........ xxiii 
Syringodendron ....-..----.---------+seee-- 428 
System of modern botanists.....-.--..-.+++ 435 
Tabular exhibit of the plant life of the 
WOOO rercutecnancoenis feces Soimnsiewecibiemeaic od 440-441 
Tachoma, (see Rainier). 
Tahoe Lake icccese0s esse sree sccence ss trees 314 
Tallmadge, Theodore .....-..-..------++--- 6 
Tchihatcheff, P. de 416 
Teal Lake, Michigan, quartzite............. 232 
Tehichipi Pass .......--.----+--eeee ener eee 314 
Temperature of artesian-well water........ 166 
Tenzel, W. E., Rational views of, on the na- 
ture of fossils .....--.------ee eee e eee e eee 394 
Terminology of fossil plants. (See Nomen- 
clature, etc.) 
Terrace by differential degradation, The.... 116 
, The stream .......2-..scn0e scenes 116-118 
LOUDLY sareiainrajarsiatsciemies-aursinre ediareieis 118 
latidslip ....-----2ceceeeeee ees 118 
wave built ......-..-.-....-.- 97 
Cut .-....2.-.00-2------ 84, 85 
Terraces of diverse origin.....-....-.---+-+ 115 

ing of the, on the distri- 

bution of plants ........ 

Western America ....-... 

Tertullian on the significance of fossil 
SHOMA s scnmseicaeduscc eevee senses es 386, 398 

Tests of flow in artesian wells . 160 
Teton Mountain glaciers. .- 346 
Theophrastus .-.............----- 387 
Thesaurus of American formations ..... XXVIII, 89 
Thessalon Bay, Lake Superior............-- 230 
Point :5.ci2(2/ Siemavneniseastiswesed 188 
Thickness of strata in the successive geo- 
logical formations.......-....... eitieteemeits 442 
Thompson, Minn.... 
SGIDSPG cc 3 cen teecie siese 
; Mount Shasta glacier.332-334 
pPLOL A Heesocccmemaneed XIX, 10, 11, 12 
Three Sisters (peaks) glaciers ......-...-.. 341 
Thunder Bay, Lake Superior...... 182, 187, 204, 205 
206, 227, 228 
Cape, Lake Superior............-. 203 
Thygeson, N. M ....:.-----2 ene eee eee ees 28 
Tides distinguish sea-shores from lake- 
10) 2). ee 71-86 
overrated as shore-forming agents... 79 
Tillodonts first found in Wyoming....... 250 
Tillotherium .....-..-.-.-...0-+ eee 255 
Time, Effect of, on flow of artesian wells... 163 
measures employed in the diagrams .. 442 
Tinoceras anceps 249 
grande 251 
lucare 251 
Todd County, Minnesota . 208 
POS: J. Bi saseecstics oem ceive XXI, 21, 22 
Topographic features of lake shores, The .-. 69 
WOEK ocscdeccueseereteesacess RVIT 
Térnebohn, A. E ......-....--------- eee eee 214 
Toroweap Valley, Grand Cafion of the Colo- 

TACO af ce ,ccisinicie a prcsinidiavracy-Tiaewe Setua eeees 113 
Torpedoes used to increase water-flow..-... 154 
Tournefort’s system, Scheuchzer’s attempt 

to classify fossil plants under....... 396, 425, 426 
TOWSON: Ry Mocs. sshascuene bese separ 
Transportation, Littoral . 

Trenton limestone...-...--.-.-.---------+6- 

Trifolium, Supposed fossil.........-.-.....- 396 
Trigonocarpus 447 
Trinidad, Sandstone from ...-.. ..-..------ 219 
Tuolumne Cafion .....-...----.-..2.0.-24. 316, 317 

Parmer; WHikl.ccecidscnecisiscwaateccaicsaesiimnaie 
Tyler's Fork, Quartzite from 
Types of vegetation........---..------.-++- 

Tyndall, John; an authority on glaciers .309,310,320 

Unalaska, Glaciers in............. 358 
Unger, Franz, Classification of fossil plants. 422 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany ..414, 415, 

417, 419, 420, 422 

, Rank of, as a paleobotanist 

, Sketch of............- - 875 
Ungulata ...... 255 
Uinta group... .-- se. ee ence ee eneeen cece ene 252 

468 INDEX. 
Page. Page. 
Vinta Mountains ..........--20-2-.0-eeee ee 249 | Wasatch Mountains........--...22222ceneee 249 
Uintatherium ......-.----- 22. eseee cence ee 251 ; fault scarp at Farming- 
Undertow at head of bay........--..------- 98 ton, Utah..........-. 114 
, Detritus sorted by .-.......-.--. 86-98 | Water, Character of, in artesian wells...... 166 
, Function of ...... Jeoteewoe ee ses 81,82 | Wausat..-...- 220.222 ee eee ee eee eee 194, 214 
Union Peak, Nevada .......-----2.22++-+-+- 342 | Wauswaugoning Bay, Lake Superior ...... 233 

Upham, Warren, Minnesota Geological sur- 

VEY nak dcoweake comers tenon emeaee 183, 197 
Upheaval causes irregularity of erosion... 15 
Uralitic diabase defined..........-.-------- 215 

gabbro defined.......-.....-..----- 215 
Van Hise, Prof.C.K-.... 24, 25, 27, 28, 188, 194, 196, 
197, 202, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 237-240 

Hoesen, Henry I.....-...-.-.-.-------- 34 
Vancouver cited on Alaskan glaciers ....-. 
Vanuxem's Geology of New York ...-. .-. 

Varnum, R. T 
Vascular cryptogams .-. 
Vegetable paleontology -.....-.-... ....-- 363 
Vermilion Creek deposit .... .-...----.---. 252 
. 193, 197, 205, 208, 210 
dsisetineeces: 206 
Vertebre of dinocerata, The.............. 294-298 
Vertebrate life in America, Section to illus- 
trate .....--.- 253 
paleontology . -- 363 
Virtus formativa... .........202...-2---5-- 389 
Vis lapidifica, Theory of .......-.... -... 389,390 
Vitis, Supposed fossil .....-. ............- 396 
Voigt, Johann Karl Wilhelm, on sand- 
Bae os 219 
on the Pearolithes of the Museum 
Lenzianum ... .. ...--..-.-. ---- 402 
Volkmann, G. A., Names given to fossil. 
plants by..... ...-... 426 
; degeneration of plants ........ 397 
; diluvian originoffussilremains. 392 
; indigenous theory of fossil 
plants . 396 
Volkmannia.....-..---.-----2----- ees eeeeee 430 
Wade, Melvin S ............-..-eeeeeeeeeee 50 
Wadsworth, M.E ................ 191, 193, 213, 214, 
216, 217, 218, 220 
Wakefield, G. F.......------..---eaceee--e- 6 
Walch, J, E. Immanuel.......-...--.-..... 400 
; diluvian origin of fossil remains... 392 
; exotic theory of fussil plants -.... 397 
; extinct Calamitay .......--......... 398 
; indigenous theory of fossil plants... 396 
; nomenclature and classification of 
fossil plants 403, 426 
Walcott, Charles D.-..-... XXVI, 19 
; administrative report . 52,55 
Walled lakes........---- 22. .-0-- seer eeeeee 109 
Walling, Prof. H. F ...-..... ...... XVI, 8, 4,7, 8 
Ward, Lester F ..............0000-2 0-005 XXVI, 50 

; administrative report .... 

; Sketch of paleobotany ...357-452 

gp OSDOLNG 3 22 se5;5-7 wiasdiciecloinie Sess aeiereyerevejerd 57 
Wasatch deposits 

Wave-built terrace, The 
-cut terrace, The..... 
motion, Theory of 
-work on shores...-...---2. -- --s65 

OF ii eintasate ctavars ninvarciteiptamialaialeniaise eneasiet 101 
Wedel, G. W., Rational views of, on the na- 
tare:Of fossils: se jccise ces weses. seeeieciree 394 
Weed, Walter H........-.....2..0------00- 15,18 
Wells. (See Artesian.) 
Weppen, J. A., on petrified wood from India 
and Siberia. sccceccscdcecescegsas veecee< 402 
Werner, W. G.; Neptunian theory......... 398 

Westfield; Wid: s-.20--- 0s cceesecceceeeces 
Wheeler, Liens. G. M-...- 
Wheeler's Peak....-.-.-. 20.2... cece eee ee ee 

; administrative report.... 50,51 

, cited on artesian wells... 149 
, explained shore wall... .. 109 
; map of Iowa........--.-. 181 
ROW AG esis einclercctecitaccieerente 342 
River glacier . 336, 337, 338, 339 
rans from a glacier. - - 835, 337 
Whitney glacier...........-..2---e eee ee eee 334 
Prof. J. D.; on California glaciers. 326 
; Mount Shasta gla- 
ciers...--...0..---- 332 
, red snow on Mount 
Shasta ..-.......... 323 
Whittlesey, Mount.............00..0002.04. 232 

Wichman, A....----...-.....-.0-- 
Williams, A. jr .-. 

; administrative report .... 63, 64 
 PLOl, Ws Sic creweeeuscnece XXVI, 52, 54 

Williamson, W.C ....-- 202.0222. 2 ee eee ee 
, Contributions of, to paleobot- 

ANY isc neces owes 

, Sketch of 

Wilson, H. M..........-. -.22.. 
Winchell, Prof. N. H. ..26, 192, 202, 206, 207, 208, 225 

, on equivalence of slates .....-.. 196 
; map of Minnesota.............-. 181 
; report cited 183 
Wind River glaciers. ... 344 
mountains... 249 
Wintun glacier..........-..2.20..-..2.22006 333, 
Wisconsin River -.....-....2....22-..-000. 198, 217 
Valley osceccccesce 211, 213, 214, 216, 228 

; Upper, Schists and quart- 
BULEB Of scnk sc ceenanowins 194 
Witham, Henry T. M...........---........ 369, 374 
, Contributions of, to paleobotany.. 411 
go Keteli Of seencmeees: wae sectccnn: 372 
Wood County, Wisconsin ...-.....2........ 217 
, Prof. A.,gaveaccountofMount Hood 339 

Woodward, Dr. John, on the effects of the 
BUD ds eeccuasuernun Wee au eames a wmune 

INDEX. 469 
Page. Page. 
Wooster, L. O.....cccnecennnncceeees dene XXvI, 53 | Yale College museum; Wyoming fossils... 251 
Worring and Auer's invention of physio- 252, 255, 261, 265, 276 
PY DY io sss isc caasncwee: venes scicecicesmncdie 880 | Yeates, C.M .......-ecscecee 
‘Wright, George M ..... .-15, 214, 215, 331 | Yellowstone National Park survey 
Wyoming Division, The............-..-.+-- 10 | Young, A. A., describes a sandstone 
Eocene lake basin. sedvandsiss: 249 | Yuccites ......2....0--scncennscneesen 
Zamia angustifolia 
Kanthus -...... ccc cccennccennsenccncncnene’ 886 | Zenker, Jonathan Carl, Contributions of, to 
Xenophanes on the significance of fossil paleobotany. ....-.sscsenens ccnncsceneeens 411 
shellg ....cc0020 886, 898 | Zirkel. 219 220 


to ——